Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Burma

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Burma.

Shailesh Vara: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Burma.

Shahid Malik: Severe economic mismanagement has led to one third of Burma's population living on less than 16p a day, and the recent brutal suppression has created even greater hardship. In response, the Department for International Development is providing £1 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs, as well as the £8 million already planned for this year. This week, DFID agreed to increase by £100,000 this year's funding to the Thailand Burma Border Consortium for its work with internally displaced people and refugees along the border.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for that very encouraging response setting out what the Government are doing, but what steps is his Department taking to ensure that economic sanctions against that dreadful regime in Rangoon are carefully targeted on the junta and its cronies, and do not damage the livelihoods of the already impoverished people of Burma?

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that on 15 October, European Union Foreign Ministers agreed to tougher sanctions. These are sanctions targeted on the cronies and the regime, and they focus on timber, precious metals and gems. I had the opportunity this week to speak to Mark Canning, Her Majesty's ambassador in Rangoon, who is doing an excellent job. He told me that the sanctions are biting, and gave the example of a person he described as the No. 1 crony of the regime, who owns Air Bagan. It has been forced to shut accounts in Singapore, and it might well be the case that it closes altogether within the next two weeks.

Shailesh Vara: With more than 25 per cent. of the people in Burma living on less than $1 a day, why did the Government not endorse the recommendation of the International Development Committee to quadruple aid by 2013?

Shahid Malik: We fully recognise the need to increase funding and support for Burma. It is for that exact reason that on 29 October this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a doubling of aid to £18 million from the current £9 million, which is broadly on a trajectory to meet the target of quadrupling aid by 2013 recommended by the IDC report. We will, of course, review the situation in 2010-11, but Members who have a longer memory of this place than I do will recall that in 1997 aid to Burma was £250,000.

John Battle: I thank the Minister for increasing aid to Burma, not least in the light of the report of our International Development Committee, which stressed that for too long the poor and displaced of Burma had been neglected. Will he spell out a bit more where the money will go? It is really important that it reaches the poor and is not filtered out.

Shahid Malik: My right hon. Friend has a long track record in international development matters. He is absolutely right to request that that information be spelled out. I shall speak about the £1 million that was announced. It will go to monastic schools and orphanages, and will also be spent on feeding malnourished children in primary schools, on water and sanitation projects, and on supporting Médecins sans Frontières in its work to provide basic health care.
	The doubling of spend will focus on areas where we have already had a really big impact such as primary school education, HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, refugees and internally displaced persons—the IDC made it clear that such work needed to be upscaled—and work on civil society organisations. Of course, we continue to work with the rural poor, which is a massive challenge in Burma.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend will be aware of the horrific incidence of rape and sexual violence against women by militia groups in Burma. Will he explain how his Department hopes to assist civic society groups that support women in Burma in their campaign to bring that issue to the world's attention?

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the outrage that exists in Burma. We have provided a new £3 million to strengthen civil society organisations and build the foundations of democracy. We are also discussing our programme over the next three years with various non-governmental organisations, and I have no doubt that the area of concern she raises will receive the attention it deserves.

Malcolm Bruce: Can the Minister say how much more difficult it is to get aid through to civil societies from Rangoon following the recent demonstrations and crackdown? Given the need to get aid to people wherever they are, will Ministers review the closure of the office in Bangkok in view of the fact that so many out-of-country organisations are based there and need regular support?

Shahid Malik: I shall attempt to give some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that staff in the Rangoon office will increase from three to 10. We are increasing our capacity in London, stepping up co-ordination between in-country and cross-border assistance and working with the United Nations. DFID staff will make more frequent visits to the borders and the camps. This week, I had an opportunity to speak to Rurik Marsden, who heads the DFID office there, and he said that he had already visited five of the nine camps. Of course, we have the embassy in Bangkok, which will liaise with the Thai Government to monitor the position on the border. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter. I hope that the reply will give him some reassurance that we are serious about tackling it.

Gordon Banks: Can my hon. Friend advise the House whether he believes that DFID provides adequate support to combat the significant HIV/AIDS problem in Burma?

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend is right to focus on HIV/AIDS, which was a taboo subject only a few years ago. We have made incredible inroads in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Burma. For example, 48 million condoms were distributed in 2005—a fourfold increase on 2000. There has been a 70 per cent. increase in the number of people visiting sexually transmitted infection clinics since 2000. Some 1.1 million needles and syringes were provided in 2005—that represents a doubling of the 2004 numbers. For the record, every second 15 DFID condoms are used somewhere in the world.

John Bercow: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), and in welcoming the proposed doubling of aid to Burma, may I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge the imperative requirement to fund exiled groups, such as pro-democracy organisations, on the border, notably the Shan Women's Action Network and the Karen Women's Organisation, not to mention the Federation of Trade Unions-Burma? They have a critical role to play and they need our support.

Shahid Malik: To correct the perception that I may have created, I have nothing to do with the usage of the condoms.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We are considering the role of exiled groups with the new money that we have. DFID staff are already discussing with exiled groups the projects that may be compatible with the International Development Act 2002 and the normal financial management requirements. We are considering that with exiled groups, civil society organisations, community-based organisations and other NGOs. It is one of the IDC's recommendations and I know that it is dear to the hon. Gentleman's heart. We are seriously considering the matter and we will be scaling up on it.

Lynne Featherstone: No doubt the Minister will be aware of the recent Amnesty International and Saferworld report, which details the practice of arms with components that have been manufactured in the United Kingdom being re-exported to Burma through third countries, thus circumventing the EU arms embargo. Does he share my concern that that undermines DFID's work in Burma? Will he give a genuine commitment to lobbying the relevant Ministers to outlaw that practice?

Shahid Malik: If what the hon. Lady describes takes place, it is unacceptable. We are not aware of any major company that invests in Burma. We know that India is considering whether to continue its arms relationship with Burma. It might end it, and that would be welcomed by the House and have an impact on the matters that the hon. Lady raises.

Andrew Mitchell: As I saw earlier this year, British taxpayers' money that is spent in Burma is extremely well spent, not least in the forgotten border camps, which desperately need more help and support. Why will the Minister not accept in full the proposal of the Select Committee and the Opposition to keep the Bangkok office open and sharply increase our support for the Burmese people?

Shahid Malik: I think I have made it clear that we are sharply increasing our support for the Burmese people. We will continue to do that. The impact of our programmes is there for all to see. Four thousand primary schools and up to 500,000 children benefited from basic supplies and text books last year, and 100,000 farmers now use low-cost water pumps, increasing their income by $190 a year—money that they can spend on food, clothing and medicines. I have already explained our position on the Bangkok office. We believe that our measures will be effective in tackling our mutual concerns about the suffering people in Burma, including the refugees in China, Thailand and elsewhere.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister and the Government need to do better on this. He knows well that we are spending more than £100 million of taxpayers' money in several African countries and more than £35 million in China this year, which last month alone had a trade surplus of £12 billion. What skewed sense of priorities does it show that we are spending less than £9 million this year in Burma, at such a critical point in that country's development?

Shahid Malik: I think that, to the people who have been listening, that would have been a less than convincing position to take. I did not want to go this far back, but in 1992 just £50,000 was given to Burma. It is a disgrace that Opposition Members should lecture us about aid to Burma.

Zimbabwe

David Amess: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

Douglas Alexander: The humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. We are playing a major role with others in the international community in helping to try to protect the Zimbabwean people from some of the worst effects of President Mugabe's reckless mismanagement.

David Amess: In spite of what the Secretary of State has just told the House, he is aware that the terrible humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe has forced thousands of people to flee to neighbouring countries. Will he tell us precisely what his Department is doing to help protect and support those people?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge that there is now a regional dimension to the national crisis that Mugabe has inflicted on his own country. Not only do we see refugee camps being established and people being absorbed into neighbouring countries such as South Africa, but we have seen a draining of much of the best talent in Zimbabwean society, whether teachers, doctors or health workers, who could assist the development needs of that community. This is a matter that we continue to discuss not just with the partner organisations which we are providing with humanitarian assistance—£40 million this year—but with neighbouring countries, not least South Africa, including at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, where our Prime Minister had discussions with President Mbeki.

Andrew MacKay: The Secretary of State is surely right to say that the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating, owing to the outrageous behaviour of the Mugabe regime, so will he condemn with me the fact that Zimbabwe will not be on the agenda of the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon this month? Does the Secretary of State agree that we will resolve the problems in Zimbabwe, particularly the humanitarian situation, only with the help of Zimbabwe's neighbours?

Douglas Alexander: I think that there is common accord between us in recognising the need for political reform; otherwise the need for humanitarian assistance will continue. The Government's position in relation to the African Union-EU summit in Lisbon has been made clear. Our Prime Minister has recognised that Mugabe's attendance will be a distraction from the vital work that the summit needs to take forward. One of the conditions of the travel visa that Mugabe has secured to attend the summit is that the issue of human rights will be discussed, which I hope is at least some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman.
	The right hon. Gentleman is also right to recognise that there is a regional dimension. We continue to look to the Southern African Development Community process, to President Mbeki and to other members of SADC—I myself spoke with President Kikwete of Tanzania about the issue last week—to recognise that the regional players, alongside Zimbabwe, have a key role to play in ensuring the kind of political changes that I am sure all of us in the House wish to see.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State is aware that all the aid that we give—it is very welcome indeed—will tackle only the symptoms of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Does he share my frustration that the European Union has gone ahead with this weekend's conference, where Mugabe will be strutting the stage despite being responsible for all the suffering in Zimbabwe? Will my right hon. Friend also look at how we can get South Africa to adopt a much stronger position? Should we also not be looking at stopping aid to—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Douglas Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that we all wish to see a summit taking place without the distraction of Mugabe's attendance. We have made that position clear. Technically, the invitation to Robert Mugabe was extended by the African Union, which is in charge of who attends the summit. In relation to South Africa, President Mbeki held cordial and constructive discussions with our Prime Minister in Kampala at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Our bilateral relations continue to be strong: I spoke last week to Trevor Manuel, the Finance Minister. I assure my hon. Friend that South Africa is very clear about the position being adopted by the British Government.
	All that being said, I am keen to avoid offering from this Dispatch Box any comfort or opportunity for Mugabe to distort what I wish to see—a genuinely united international effort against the actions of his regime—and to caricature and characterise it as simply the concerns of the United Kingdom. It is vital that we continue to work with others to find a way forward.

Quentin Davies: The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on declining to take part in any meeting with President Mugabe. As the Secretary of State acknowledges, South Africa is the key to this. What further arguments can be deployed to try to persuade the South African Government to take a more robust line on Zimbabwe?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the key role that South Africa has to play, although of course the whole of SADC has a responsibility. When I met President Kikwete in Tanzania last week, I took the opportunity to emphasise to him the importance of SADC setting out the democratic norms and standards expected of the election prior to its taking place. It would be a tragedy were the SADC process seen in retrospect as somehow having legitimised an election that was not deemed free and fair. We are therefore strongly urging South Africa, Tanzania and other members of the SADC process to be very clear in advance about the standards and norms expected of a free and fair election.

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State will know that starvation and brutal oppression get worse day by day in Mr. Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings take place—they come and go—as do those with our European partners. When will the Government and the world take action to deal with the brutality and horrors in Zimbabwe, for which we are in part responsible?

Douglas Alexander: I recognise and commend the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in Zimbabwe and concern for the humanitarian crisis in that country. There is common accord between us in recognising the scale of that crisis today. The economy has halved in size in less than 10 years. As he describes, 4 million people—a third of the population—are now reliant on food aid. I part company with him, however, in that I recognise we are taking urgent action on the humanitarian issue: we committed £40 million this year to the humanitarian effort. Through the good offices of the President of South Africa and other African leaders, along with our work in the European Union, we are one of the leading countries in urging international action against the Zimbabwean regime.

Bill Olner: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the aid being given is getting to the people who deserve and need it, and is not being diverted by Mugabe to feed his troops who keep the ordinary people down?

Douglas Alexander: Obviously I share my hon. Friend's concerns, and that is why we ensure that aid is provided not to the Government of Zimbabwe but through humanitarian providers. As for the recent publicity on food aid, we have ensured that the problem does not apply to the processes put in place for the United Kingdom.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House to calm down and for fewer conversations to take place?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Although it is highly regrettable that President Mugabe has chosen to attend the EU-AU summit, when combined with toughened US sanctions will it not provide an opportunity for the world to focus on a country that has the lowest life expectancy on the planet, and far too high a level of Government torture? Is it not high time that the EU followed the United States example, in order to provide the best prospects of the international community acting in concert, with neighbouring states, to provide a long-term, lasting solution to alleviate some of the worst suffering in the world?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Douglas Alexander: I do not sense that there is disagreement across the House on that matter. Of course I welcome the recent steps taken by the American Administration. In many ways, Europe has led on this issue, but if further action can be taken at the European level, we should give urgent consideration to that task. I do not think, however, that this is the sole responsibility of either the European Union or the United States. That is why we have encouraged Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, to look at the prospect of sending a UN special envoy to Zimbabwe; why we are keen for the Security Council to take a more active role in respect of the Zimbabwe situation; and why we continue to urge South Africa and its SADC partners to take a lead on this issue. Frankly, there are severe problems in Zimbabwe, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, but there is a role for a whole range of multilateral bodies.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure my right hon. Friend is well aware that women and children living on the streets of Zimbabwe are being abused and raped and that there is no help or support going to people suffering from HIV. The time has come when only the Church is providing the last bastion of support for the Zimbabwean people, but the Church is now under threat from Mugabe's thugs. What can we do to support the people there?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend identifies one of the many challenges afflicting that troubled land at the moment. One in five Zimbabweans now has HIV, and AIDS is killing more than 2,500 people a week in that country. That is why part of the money we provide is being channelled towards HIV treatment; we are providing HIV assistance to 30,000 people this year. At the same time as we are dealing with the symptoms of the problem, we also need to support international efforts to deal with its cause, which is the chronic misrule of Zimbabwe by Robert Mugabe and his team.

Nuclear Weapons

David Heathcoat-Amory: If he will reduce the level of aid given to developing countries which have nuclear weapons.

Douglas Alexander: Decisions on the allocation of UK development assistance are made with the primary objective of poverty reduction. Possession of nuclear weapons does not preclude countries from this process. However, we will consider reducing or interrupting aid if a country is in significant violation of either human rights or other international obligations.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Secretary of State confirm that our bilateral aid programme includes aid to India, Pakistan, Russia and China, all of which are nuclear weapons states. Two of those countries have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so will he in future make British aid conditional on all countries living up to their nuclear non-proliferation obligations?

Douglas Alexander: DFID actually closed its bilateral development assistance programme in Russia in March 2007 and our bilateral programme with China is due to end in 2011. It is the case that sustained high levels of poverty are still afflicting India, which is the subject of our largest bilateral programme. Our determining factor is, of course, the level of poverty and what work can be done to address the challenge of alleviating it. That is why I do not anticipate making the changes that the right hon. Gentleman suggests in respect of either Pakistan or India.

Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that when some of us visited India earlier this year, it was confirmed that 1,000 people a day die of tuberculosis? Some fine examples of DFID's help turned out to be very impressive, so can my right hon. Friend think of any reason why those poor hapless people should be doubly penalised because of the policies of their Government?

Douglas Alexander: As so often in such discussions of international development, I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend. Eighty per cent. of the population of India today are living in conditions of poverty or of absolute poverty. That is why we are called on to act to show our support for the poverty reduction efforts of the Government of India. That is why we will continue to support the Indian people on their journey towards development, and why I would reject the apparent suggestion made by Conservative Members.

Gary Streeter: But should not our aid policy, which is important in its own right, also be seen as a lever of our foreign diplomacy? When a Government take a course of action with which we strongly disagree—whether it be acquiring nuclear weapons or locking up innocent British citizens—should we not at the very least discuss with those countries the reduction of our aid budget so that the country's Government will change course? Is that not one way of using our aid budget effectively?

Douglas Alexander: I am not inclined to take lectures from the Conservative party on using international aid money effectively, given the experience of the Pergau dam and the tied aid that was provided, and the year-on-year cuts delivered to international development under the Government who were in power until 1997. Since 1997, we have untied the aid that was tied under the Conservative party; we have increased the aid that was cut under the Conservative party; and we have legislated in this House for the International Development Act 2002. If the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the policy of international development should simply be an instrument of British foreign policy, perhaps that is a matter that he would like to discuss with those on his own Front Bench.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Brian Binley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 December.

Gordon Brown: Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of the serviceman killed in Afghanistan yesterday. We owe him, and others who have lost their lives, a huge debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Brian Binley: I am sure that the whole House will want me to add my condolences, together with theirs, to those of the Prime Minister.
	Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. Does that sound familiar to the Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: The Conservatives should know about trouble: we had 18 years of it under them. As for remedies, the hon. Gentleman gives me the chance to make an offer to the Conservative party. We have made proposals to legislate on political funding, along the lines of the Hayden Phillips report. They include a national and local limit on spending both at and between elections, a cap on donations, and transparency. I hope that the Opposition will return to the talks on those matters.

Sandra Osborne: I add my condolences to those of the Prime Minister. People in my constituency whose lives have been touched by cancer are dismayed that the Scottish National party Administration look set to cancel a cancer centre at Ayr hospital. I welcome the announcement of a £500 million world-class medical research centre to work on cancer and fine-science projects with the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. Will the Prime Minister assure me that that will benefit every part of the United Kingdom?

Gordon Brown: There has been a 16 per cent. reduction in cancer as a result of the new investment since 1997. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Health was able to announce further investment in both prevention and cure for future years. Today I met representatives of the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and University college London. We now agree that there will be perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a leading medical research centre in London that will attract scientists from all over the world. Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize winner, has agreed to lead this £500 million project, which holds the hope of curing some of the deadliest diseases of our time. I hope that there will be an all-party welcome for it.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the soldier who was killed in Afghanistan yesterday.
	The Prime Minister said in May that one of his first acts as Prime Minister would be to
	"build the trust of the British people in our democracy".
	For the past seven months, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has been without a new chairman. Can the Prime Minister tell us why it has taken so long to make that appointment?

Gordon Brown: The appointment of the new chairman is being announced today.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to what the Prime Minister has to say.

Gordon Brown: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be interested in the process as well as the personalities. I ask him again, as I asked the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), whether he supports the changes that we are recommending in electoral law and political party funding, and whether he will support a national and local limit on expenditure.

David Cameron: It has taken the Prime Minister seven months to make one of the most important appointments in politics. Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee, said that the last fortnight had demonstrated a
	"monumental incompetence and ignorance of the law which beggars belief".
	Last week the Prime Minister set great store by the investigation established under Lord Whitty, which he described as urgent. Will he confirm that, this week, the inquiry has had to be partially suspended?

Gordon Brown: No, the inquiry is not suspended. Lord Whitty continues to bring together and collate information, but the interviewing of people will be at the discretion of the police, as I said in my letter to the Metropolitan police. What the right hon. Gentleman has now got to answer is this: if he wants changes in the political system, will he support our proposals? On Monday, he said:
	"I don't believe a global spending limit"
	on election expenditure
	"is necessary."
	But in March the shadow Leader of the House said:
	"We accept"
	the Hayden Phillips
	"recommendations...we are happy to discuss spending caps on all year round non-election campaigning".—[ Official Report, 15 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 469.]
	Which is the position of the Opposition?

David Cameron: I have to say that the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: "Answer."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak. He does not need to answer anything; all he has to do is ask questions.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants a deal, he should include the unions, as we suggested two years ago. But he has just given the most extraordinary answer to the House, because I have a copy of the national executive committee minutes, which were written by Michael Cashman—this Government have to have a former soap star to chronicle their woes. Those minutes make it absolutely clear that parts of that inquiry were put on hold. The Prime Minister was telling the public on Saturday that he had acted swiftly, but was agreeing with the NEC that parts of the inquiry would be put on hold. So much for openness.
	Let us have a look at another promise the Prime Minister made. He said he would always do the right thing by the armed forces. So can he tell us why, with our troops fighting on two fronts, he still has a part-time Secretary of State for Defence?

Gordon Brown: First of all, on the issue of election funding and party finance, it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to enter the debate on the levels of— [Interruption.]. We are happy to rejoin the discussions.
	Secondly, on the Defence Secretary, let me just say that there have been many hard-working Defence Secretaries from both sides of the House in many years over the last decades. The Defence Secretary in post is a hard-working, conscientious and dedicated servant of the people, and I defy the Opposition to suggest there is any occasion on which he has failed to do his duty by the armed forces of this country. The Defence Secretary continues to do all the work of the Defence Secretary, and let me just say this: the proposal that the job be shared with another member of the Cabinet, the Scottish Secretary of State, was a proposal made in the 2001 manifesto of the Conservative party.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister does not have to listen— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the— [Interruption.] Order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister does not have to listen to Opposition MPs. Why does he not listen to Lord Gilbert, a former Labour defence spokesman and Labour Minister, who said:
	"I think that it is a disgraceful appointment...It is an insult—not merely to those who are serving in Her Majesty's forces but also to their families"?
	The Prime Minister wants to get out of the hole he has dug for himself; why does he not start today by appointing a full-time Secretary of State for Defence?

Gordon Brown: The Defence Secretary is hard-working, conscientious and is doing his duty, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward evidence of where he was not. Let us just look at the question of defence spending, which has been raised by the Opposition. We are spending £1 billion more on defence every year. We are now the second largest country in the world for defence spending, whereas we were fifth in 1997. Let the Opposition answer this question, because the shadow— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is in order.

Gordon Brown: As far as defence spending is concerned, the shadow Chancellor said that
	"lots of Conservatives...come up to me and say we've really got to...pay our armed forces more, we need more soldiers...and so on."
	He said that
	"those are all very good things but they do cost money and part of our discipline, part of the test of whether we are ready for government is whether we can resist those additional draws on public expenditure".
	Far from wanting to spend more, it is likely that they would spend less.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister wants evidence. Perhaps he will listen to the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, who said:
	"It is seen as an insult by our sailors, our soldiers and our airmen on the front line...and it is certainly a demonstration of the disinterest and, some might say, contempt that the Prime Minister and his Government have for our armed forces."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 952.]
	The Prime Minister has broken his promise on trust; he has broken his promise on defence.
	Today, the Prime Minister is finally announcing the prison-building programme that we have requested for so long yet, since he has been Prime Minister, 11,000 prisoners—criminals—have been released early— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) must behave. He is behaving in a strange way just now.

David Cameron: Labour Members do not like it when they can see their Government falling apart in front of their eyes. The report that the Prime Minister is publishing today says that jail sentences should be cut because there are not enough prison places. Surely the Prime Minister agrees that sentences should fit the crime, not the number of prison places.

Gordon Brown: Of course sentences should fit the crime and, of course, judges and magistrates will be the people who deliver sentences. I hope that there is no disagreement between us on that. As far as the right hon. Gentleman's point about early release is concerned, let me just tell him that early release was decided by the Conservative Government in 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1996, and that tens of thousands of prisoners were released under those schemes. He should wait for the Justice Secretary's announcement, but I assure him, on his spokesman's proposal of 1,200 prison places, that we accept that that is not enough. There will be more than 1,200 prison places. The difference is that we will pay for them out of the prudent running of the economy. We will not pay for them out of a cancellation of identity cards—the Conservatives have already allocated that money for three different projects over the past few months.

David Cameron: People worried about crime on our streets will find that answer frankly pathetic. Everybody knows that the reason we do not have enough prison places is that the Prime Minister failed to build them. I know that he wants us to think that, like the man in the canoe, he has not been around for the past five years, but he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who failed to build the prisons. He promised public safety, but he has let thousands of criminals out of jail. He promised to protect defence, but he has given us a part-time Secretary of State. He promised integrity, yet his own Government are being investigated by the police. It took Tony Blair 10 years before confidence in his Administration collapsed. Has not this Prime Minister managed it in six months?

Gordon Brown: Crime is down by 30 per cent. under this Government. Burglary is down by 55 per cent., violent crime is down by 31 per cent., and there are 4.5 million fewer victims of crime as a result of the changes. We have more police than ever before. We have built 20,000 prison places, and we are about to announce that we are building more. We can do it because we run a successful economy; it is not the failed economy that we inherited from the Conservatives.

Jeff Ennis: The chief executive of Yorkshire Forward recently informed me that Barnsley's economy has recovered to the levels that it enjoyed prior to the previous Government's massive pit closure programme in the early 1990s. That is mainly thanks to this Labour Government and a progressive local Labour council. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Barnsley may have been brassed off with the Tories in the 1990s, but they will never be brassed off with this Labour Government and this Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: What Yorkshire Forward has done and what local councils have done to rebuild employment in the areas that were devastated by the loss of mining jobs is something that we should all congratulate them on. That is one of the reasons why there are nearly 3 million more jobs in this economy, and why unemployment is down by 1 million. I must say to the House that if we were to take the advice of the Opposition and abolish the new deal, we would have higher unemployment. We will have lower unemployment under a Labour Government.

Vincent Cable: May I add my condolences on the loss of the soldiers in Afghanistan?
	Now that the taxpayers' loan to Northern Rock has almost reached the level of the annual defence budget and is increasing every week by £3 billion—the equivalent of 15 hospitals—what guarantees has the Prime Minister received that this money will be fully repaid, beyond the vague assurances offered by Mr. Branson and the assorted collection of hedge-fund sharks who are behind him and others?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind whether he wants Northern Rock to be rescued or not. The important thing, for the stability of the economy, the security of mortgage holders and the company's shareholders, is that it be rescued. We have taken the necessary action. At one stage, there was all-party support for that. I believe that we have done the right thing, and any settlement with any potential buyer will insist that the public funds are properly protected.

Vincent Cable: There is a sensible way to rescue the bank. Why is the Prime Minister so dogmatically opposed to the common-sense solution of public ownership on a temporary basis, which would protect the public loan, the north-east and the depositors? Is it that he regards the advocates of that policy, which now include the  Financial Times, The Economist and, apparently, his own civil servants, as too left wing, or is he petrified by indecision?

Gordon Brown: I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman is better at the jokes than at economics. When he talks about Northern Rock and public ownership as a temporary solution, he means that we should try to find a private buyer. That is exactly what we are going to do. All options are on the table, but we are trying to find a private buyer.

James McGovern: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Tesco, one of the UK's most successful companies, generated a profit of some £2.5 billion last year and regularly trumpets its commitment to fair trade. Meanwhile, Tesco workers at a call centre in my constituency are reduced to taking blankets and hot water bottles into work because of the low temperatures. Tesco responded by issuing a memo to all employees, suggesting that they wash their hands regularly and, bizarrely, sing "Happy Birthday" at the same time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a response is entirely inappropriate in this day and age, that Tesco should include fair treatment of workers in its commitment to fair trade, and that Tesco's finest are its work force?

Gordon Brown: Tesco has a reputation for being a good employer. It has a union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that represents its workers, and I am sure that those matters will be taken up with it. In addition, we are working with Tesco and many other retailers to create more jobs for local people. Of course, those must be jobs with the best conditions possible.

Peter Bone: The national health service saved the Prime Minister's sight, but under his Government thousands of people with wet-eye age-related macular degeneration are going blind unnecessarily. There is a simple and effective sight-saving treatment that is not available on the NHS. Patients are told that they have to pay for private treatment or go blind. Is that morally right?

Gordon Brown: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As he will know, tremendous advances have been made in ophthalmic surgery and treatment in recent years. This is essentially a matter for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to make recommendations, and I will ensure that this matter is before it.

Hilary Armstrong: I know that my right hon. Friend has seen, and values, the work of volunteers in many poor countries, who make such a contribution to our international development commitment. Today is international volunteers day and I hope that the Prime Minister will re-emphasise the commitment of the Government to supporting volunteers who play such an important part in bringing hope to impoverished communities.

Gordon Brown: I know that my right hon. Friend was herself a Voluntary Service Overseas volunteer in her youth and did a tremendous amount of work in Africa. I know that thousands of people have benefited from serving overseas, and thousands of people have had the benefit of that service. When I was in Uganda for the Commonwealth conference, I met some of the volunteers who are giving their time to help to rebuild schools and the economy in that area. I understand that VSO is 50 years old next year and many more young people want that opportunity in their gap year. I hope that it will be possible for many more people to link up with projects abroad, especially people from poorer areas.

Andrew George: Further to our exchange last week, when we have a local market that appears to reward those who are fortunate enough to be able to buy more properties than they need but operates as if hard-working local families have no right to live in the area, does the Prime Minister agree that we now need to explore policy solutions to give people in need a real chance? Would he be prepared to meet me and a delegation from my constituency to continue that conversation?

Gordon Brown: Of course I am happy to meet a delegation to talk about housing, but the hon. Gentleman also asks about taxation and related capital gains. He should know that capital gains tax on a first dwelling is zero per cent. and that, whatever changes have been made to CGT for a second dwelling, the rate is still a great deal higher than that.
	In respect of additional housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I have looked at what is happening in his local authority area. There are 382 houses under construction there at the moment, and the annual dwelling requirement is said to be 230 so, in his area at least, house building is moving. I hope that it can move forward in other areas as well.

Russell Brown: This week's conference in Bali is regarded as the world's last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming. Given that the world's most industrialised nations are responsible for increased greenhouse gas emissions, what positive messages does the Prime Minister hope to hear from Bali?

Gordon Brown: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been in Bali, working with others to try to get the first stages of an agreement. I believe that there is general good will for a binding agreement that will include all countries, including America in future years. I hope that we can make progress over the next few months. We, the European Union, have put forward proposals for a 20 or 30 per cent. cut by 2020, and there are discussions about a far higher cut in 2050. We are prepared to make the steps forward, and I hope that other continents will join us as a result of the Bali talks.

Philip Dunne: Having fixed school spending per pupil for the next three years to favour Labour areas— [ Interruption. ] Yes, and having forced school closures in Shropshire and other rural counties, is not this scandal what the Prime Minister really means when he talks about education for the many, not the few?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that education spending per pupil was falling under the Conservative Government. It has doubled under this Government, and will continue to rise. What will do most damage to his constituency are the proposals made by those on his Front Bench to transfer money out of the school-building and repair programme. The result would be 240 schools cancelled, or one in seven of the new secondary schools to be built. I hope that he will urge his colleagues to think again about that proposal.

Lyn Brown: In Newham, we have 30,000 people on the housing waiting list, and 5,000 in temporary accommodation. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss how we can ensure that the build in Thames Gateway and Stratford city is appropriate to the needs of those families, and that it is of the right size?

Gordon Brown: The Thames Gateway is now the biggest regeneration project in Europe. It will create thousands of homes and jobs, and mean the redevelopment of an area of London that was neglected previously. I agree with my hon. Friend that in that development we need not just houses but affordable housing. That is why, in our discussions with those involved with the project, we are insisting on a very high level of affordable housing, either shared equity or housing for social rent.

Greg Hands: With three different police investigations under way, two members of his Cabinet and his protégé in Scotland falling foul of the law and his party general secretary facing charges, is this what the Prime Minister meant when he called himself a conviction politician?

Gordon Brown: If the Conservative party wants to play its part in sorting out politics for the future, it should adopt our proposals for national and local limits on expenditure and for greater transparency in how things are done.

David Kidney: Is the Prime Minister as pleased as I am to see today's announcement about a comprehensive plan for stroke services? Having visited a rehabilitation class in Stafford that was led by the Stroke Association, may I urge him to make sure that our health and social care services fully involve the Stroke Association, patients and—crucially—their carers?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend may have seen a report this morning showing that voluntary organisations, as well as the private sector, are more involved than ever in the provision of public services. One of the advantages of involving the Stroke Association and others is that they can make known their views about how services should be shaped for the future. This week, we launched a cancer strategy and a stroke strategy. We have launched a new medical research centre that will be the leading research centre in Europe. The health service is moving forward to the 21st century with a Labour Government; it should not be damaged by the Conservative party.

Patrick Mercer: In June, my friend, Captain Sean Dolan, was killed by a mortar round from the Taliban. Six months later, there is no sign of a coroner's inquest into his death. Will the Prime Minister put his personal energy behind the issue, so that my friend's widow and the widows of the dead in all these campaigns can seek closure for their mourning?

Gordon Brown: I have a tremendous amount of respect for what the hon. Gentleman says on that matter. The coroner's inquest should be moved forward and we have put more money into making that possible, and made some changes so that it can happen. In the case of the tragic death to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and about which he talked to me at one stage, I think there is a board of inquiry at the moment, which would precede the inquest. However, I can tell him that more resources will be made available for coroners' inquests.

Andrew Dismore: Last night was the first night of Hanukkah. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pass on his best wishes to the Jewish community and acknowledge its great contribution to our society and life?

Gordon Brown: I agree entirely. When I addressed the Board of Deputies of British Jews, I told them that their community plays an enormous part in our life, not only through all the voluntary organisations in the Jewish community, which do a huge amount of work, but also through the contribution that is made right across our national life by organisations that represent the Jewish community. I pay tribute to what they have done over the centuries in our country.

Nadine Dorries: A young girl, Monica, lives in my constituency in abject poverty. Her English father has died and her Kenyan mother is not allowed to work and is not entitled to benefits. She is fed by a small fund at the local school, but it has now run out. She is transported to school by members of the local Church, who also provide her with clothes. She is living in complete poverty. Will the Prime Minister meet my constituent to discuss the case, or intervene to sort the issue out?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Lady gives me details of a situation about which I had not been informed before this morning. I shall look at it carefully and, if necessary, meet her to talk about the issues. It is an unfortunate situation if someone is deprived of any income and that should not be happening.

Martin Linton: Will the Prime Minister make it a priority to visit schools that have made the biggest contribution to raising standards, such as Battersea technology college, where the GCSE score rose from 5 per cent. in 1997 to 60 per cent. this year? Although most of the credit belongs to the head, staff, governors and pupils, which does my right hon. Friend think more likely to lead to an improvement of that magnitude—the £22.5 billion increase in education spending that has taken place since 1997 or a £21 billion cut in public spending plans such as that proposed by the Conservative tax reform commission?

Gordon Brown: I congratulate Battersea college —the staff, pupils and all associated with it, including the parents and governors. It is a spectacular achievement to move from such a low level to the national average of 60 per cent. of 15-year-olds gaining GCSE at A to C. We will continue to make improvements, which is why in the last few months we have announced more money for science, more money for maths and more money for literacy. That is why we are trying to improve the curriculum in all those areas and it is also why we are introducing personal tuition for pupils who have fallen behind. But I agree with my hon. Friend that it would not be possible if, instead of affordable tax cuts and public investment rising, we had unaffordable tax cuts that would mean public investment falling, under the Conservatives.

David Simpson: Does the Prime Minister agree that following recent attempts on the lives of police officers by paramilitary organisations in the Province, there would be no public confidence in any early move to devolve policing and justice powers? Will he assure the House that there will be no attempt, either through the House or by back-door means, to push through such legislation on the Province?

Gordon Brown: First, on the serious incidents that the hon. Gentleman talks about, and the injuries and anguish for the police officers and the families concerned, I sympathise with them and I have talked to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Administration about them. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been looking at what has happened. We have to assure ourselves that everything is being done both to arrest the people responsible and to prevent any return to violence. On the issue of policing and security, this is a matter for continuing discussion between the Government and the Northern Ireland Administration, and I think that that is the proper way of moving this forward.

Gordon Marsden: Does the Prime Minister agree that the major announcements made by the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills on apprenticeships, and particularly adult apprenticeships, will be very welcome to my constituents in Blackpool, and particularly to women returning to work after 15 or 20 years? Does the Prime Minister believe, like me, that that marks a huge contrast with what the Conservative party did in its last five years in government, when it put money into neither apprenticeships nor further education?

Gordon Brown: The apprenticeship was dying under the Conservatives. There are now 250,000 young people in apprenticeships and that number is going to double to 500,000 over the next decade. People must face up to this big challenge for our future: either we can educate young people to the age of 18—in work, whether part-time or full-time, in training or in education—or we will fall behind our competitors. I am sorry that the Conservative party thinks that education to 18 is a stunt. It is the right way forward for the British people.

Prisons (Carter Review)

Jack Straw: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the report of the prisons review carried out by my noble Friend Lord Carter of Coles. Copies of his report are available in the Vote Office and on my Department's website. Lord Carter was asked in early June of this year to undertake his inquiry. He was asked jointly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Chancellor, and my predecessor as Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Falconer. I am extremely grateful to Lord Carter, and his team, for all their time, expertise and professionalism.
	Lord Carter's report proposes a large increase in prison building. It says that there is an urgent need for an improved long-term mechanism for better balancing supply and demand for prison places. It puts forward far-reaching proposals for a judiciary-led sentencing commission, and for efficiency and organisational changes
	Let me first give the context of the review. For more than half a century, from the end of the war, crime rose inexorably. As each successive Government left office, crime was higher than when they came in—significantly higher, in the case of the 1979 to 1997 Administration. In sharp contrast, we are the first Government since the war under whom crime has not risen, but fallen—and fallen by a third. Violent crime is down, burglary and vehicle crime are down, and the chance of being a victim of crime is lower than at any time since 1981.
	Those improvements are due to many factors: the police, local communities, local authorities, industry, stronger powers to deal with disorder, substantial youth justice reform, and greatly increased investment in law enforcement, with 14,000 more police officers, bringing numbers to record levels. In turn, those improvements have led to many more serious, persistent and violent offenders being brought to justice, and being sentenced for longer.
	The result has been a very rapid growth in the prison population, which is up by one third since 1997—from 60,000 to 81,500, last Friday's figure. During the same period reoffending rates have improved, while the physical condition of prison has been transformed, as has security. I pay particular tribute to prison officers, probation officers and staff at all levels. They do a difficult job in difficult circumstances.
	The whole House is agreed that, wherever appropriate, offenders should be punished in the community. Overall, investment in probation services has gone up by 72 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. We shall test intensive alternatives to custody, and provide sentences with more rigorous non-custodial regimes.
	Of course, the House and the country are clear that prison has to be used for violent, serious persistent and dangerous offenders. With so many factors in play, forecasting future trends in the prison population has always been complex and uncertain. Predictions made over the previous seven years have put the prison population for this summer both at 20,000 above, and 12,000 below, its actual level of 80,600. However, there is no doubt that the prison population will continue to rise in the next few years, given the increasing effectiveness of the system in bringing more offenders to justice. To meet previously anticipated demand, a programme of 9,500 extra places is already under way. An extra 1,600 new places have come on stream in 2007, and a further 2,300 will do so next year.
	In light of Lord Carter's recommendations, I can now announce that to secure the long-term availability of prison places, I have agreed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer additional funding of £1.2 billion, on top of the £1.5 billion already committed, to deliver a further and extended building programme that will bring an additional 10,500 places on stream by 2014. We will act on Lord Carter's recommendation to build up to three large titan prisons, housing around 2,500 prisoners each. That extra capacity will help us to modernise the prison estate, close some of the older, inefficient prisons on a new-for-old basis, and reconfigure some of the smaller sites to accommodate female or juvenile offenders.
	The building programme is aimed to bring overall net capacity to just over 96,000 places by 2014. To provide additional capacity within that total in the short to medium term, we intend to convert a former Ministry of Defence site at Coltishall in Norfolk into a category C prison, provide further places through expansion on existing prison sites, convert Her Majesty's prison Wealstun, near Leeds, into a closed prison, and bring forward projects from the building reserve list. In addition, my Department is actively looking at securing a prison ship.
	As for women in prison, the prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)—will tomorrow publish the Government's detailed response to my noble Friend Baroness Corston's report. Today I asked my noble Friend Lord Bradley to carry out a review, reporting jointly to the Department of Health and my Department, on diverting more offenders with severe mental health problems away from prison and into more appropriate facilities. Lord Carter has made important recommendations about the operation of the National Offender Management Service and the Prison Service, to improve the focus on service delivery and offender management. We will streamline corporate service costs in headquarters and regional offices in NOMS and the Prison Service, and we will establish a programme of performance testing.
	Contrary to myth, there have been fewer criminal justice Bills in the last 10 years than in the preceding decade.  [Interruption.] Well, I shall be happy to give the figures in due course. In the criminal justice field, it is inevitable that measures have to be kept under constant review. Indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection—IPPs—introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, have proved an effective way of dealing with the most serious and dangerous offenders. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the then Home Secretary, has confirmed to me, those sentences were never intended to target those who would have received tariffs of less than two years. Notwithstanding that, the drafting of the legislation has meant that they have been used for very short tariffs—in one case, for a tariff as short as 28 days. As recommended by Lord Carter and by the chairman of the Parole Board, Sir Duncan Nichol, we will introduce amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to establish a minimum tariff of two years, below which IPPs and extended sentences cannot be given.
	I want to make a particular point about sentences for rape. It is very rare indeed for rape offences to receive less than a two-year tariff, which is well below the recommended guideline. Any sentence for a serious offence that is effectively below a two-year tariff will be open to appeal by the Attorney-General on grounds of undue leniency. All that will ensure that IPPs are focused on the most serious and dangerous offenders.
	In addition, we are accepting Lord Carter's other recommendations to align release mechanisms for offenders sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 with those sentenced under the 2003 Act. Offenders sentenced for non-sexual, non-violent offences committed since 2005 are now eligible for release at the halfway point of their sentence and remain on licence to the end of that sentence, rather than being eligible for parole at the halfway point, automatic release at two thirds, and being on licence until three quarters only. We propose to introduce a similar regime for prisoners sentenced for non-sexual, non-violent offences under previous legislation.
	Decisions about the sentence to be handed down in a particular case must be a matter of judgment for the trial judge or magistrates. Respecting the independence of sentencers to pass the sentence that they believe is appropriate in the individual case is fundamental to the integrity of the judiciary in a free society. But Parliament has a critical role to play in setting the framework for sentencing and in deciding on the level of taxpayers' money to pay for the prison places and probation services that arise from that sentencing framework.
	Over the past decade much progress has been made to develop a more coherent and transparent sentencing framework, with the Sentencing Advisory Panel in 1999, and the Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2004. But Lord Carter now highlights the need for a mechanism—a sentencing commission—that will allow for the drivers behind the prison population to be addressed and managed in a transparent, consistent and predictable manner through the provision of an indicative set of sentencing ranges.
	Such a commission would have an ongoing role in monitoring the prison population and reporting on the impacts on the prison population and penal resources of all national policy proposals and system changes. I wish to emphasise that the proposal has nothing to do with linking individual sentences to the availability of correctional resources. The debate relates to the linking of resources to the overall sentencing framework. I am pleased to accept Lord Carter's recommendation to establish a working group to consider the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of such a sentencing commission, which in our judgment will lead and inform the public debate on these issues.
	Prison is, and will remain, the right place for the most serious offenders. Custodial sentences, and therefore prison places, must also be available for less serious offenders when other measures have failed or are inappropriate. And we must have in place a rigorous and effective framework of community penalties where they are the right course.
	The measures that I have announced today will fulfil our aims in this important area. They will bring many more prison places on stream with agreed funding and a delivery programme. They will allow for a rational debate on sentencing that recognises that, as with any other public service, resources are finite. Above all, they will fulfil our commitment to provide a modernised prisons system that protects the public from the most serious offenders. I commend this statement to the House.

Nick Herbert: I thank the Secretary of State for sight of the report and his statement, just over an hour ago. All of us agree that the situation in our overcrowded prisons cannot continue. In calling for urgent action, is not the latest Carter report a devastating indictment of the Government's failure to manage the prisons system? We have consistently called for an expansion of prison capacity to meet demand, so the Government's announcement of additional prison places is welcome, but long overdue. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the additional 10,500 places that he announced today are in addition to the 9,500 places already promised?
	At present 17,000 prisoners are doubling up in cells—twice as many as when the Government came to power. Will the Government's proposals reduce that overcrowding, and will the Secretary of State reject Carter's recommendation that there is scope for increasing levels of overcrowding? The Secretary of State says that he is actively looking at securing a prison ship. Why did the Government sell off their prison ship at a loss, if a new one is to be purchased?
	We have called for more appropriate security provision for prisoners with severe mental illness, so we welcome a review in this area. Should not serious drugs offenders also be treated in separate secure units? In two previous reports Lord Carter proposed replacing unsuitable prisons. That is long overdue. Can the Secretary of State say how many of those prisons will be closed? Is he sure that Lord Carter's recommendation to build large titan prisons is right? Would it not be better to build smaller, local prisons where offenders could be closer to their families to aid rehabilitation? Is it not clear that although there will be some increase in capacity, the Government are choosing to release more prisoners early and water down sentences to moderate demand?
	We Conservatives believe that sentences should fit the crime, not jail capacity. Will not any proposal to fetter the discretion of judges and magistrates to hand down sentences as they see fit cause the gravest concern? The Government already propose to remove magistrates' right to suspend sentences; now they want to link sentences to the resources available. The Secretary of State claimed that that had nothing to do with linking individual sentences to resources, but is it not the case that sentences as a whole could be shortened if Ministers failed to provide enough capacity?
	The Secretary of State proposes greater use of community sentences as an alternative to prison, but prison is already largely reserved for serious, violent and persistent offenders. Is it not the case that 70 per cent. of prisoners released have 10 previous convictions? Prison is already the last resort, when community sentences have failed. Some 40 per cent. of unpaid work requirements for male offenders are not even completed. How can the public have confidence in community penalties as an alternative to prison when the sanctions are so weak and unenforced?
	For the past five years, the Government have paraded as a badge of honour their indeterminate sentences for public protection. Why, then, do they now propose to limit those sentences for criminals who, by definition, pose a significant risk of causing death or serious injury by reoffending? The Secretary of State proposes a minimum tariff of two years for indeterminate and extended sentences. Can he confirm that in the first year of operation, 26 indeterminate sentences for public protection with a tariff of less than two years were given for sexual offences against children?
	The Secretary of State's statement said almost nothing about improving the rehabilitation of offenders. What do the Government plan to do about the fact that prisoners still spend fewer than four hours a day engaged in purposeful activity? Any Government's first duty is to protect the public. How can the Government claim to have done so, given that they have released 11,000 offenders early on to our streets in just four months? The Carter report assumes that the end-of-custody licence will continue indefinitely. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that that measure is to become permanent?
	The Prime Minister took office promising to punish offenders, but is it not the case that we now have overdue additional places for prison, but no serious action to reform our jails? We have weak community penalties for offenders who should be sent to prison and early release for criminals who should have served their sentences. Far from honouring their promise to punish offenders, the Government's agenda is to give thousands of criminals a break.

Jack Straw: That was nonsense from beginning to end. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not dispute the fact that crime had risen inexorably for 50 years under one Government after another. Recorded crime doubled under the previous Conservative Administration. The Labour Government have been the first since the war under whom crime has gone down—and it has gone down by one third. One of the reasons for that has been provided by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the shadow prisons Minister, who said just last week:
	"The Government's policy on sentencing is to send more people to prison for longer...That is why more people have ended up in prison."—[ Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 375.]
	That happens to be the truth, but it is totally inconsistent with what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has said, which is that we are somehow letting more prisoners out.
	I am sorry to shoot the hon. Gentleman's fox so comprehensively, but last week, anticipating the review, he said:
	"So that is what it is all about—no money for prisons"—[ Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 361.]
	I have just announced £1.2 billion extra for prisons, on top of the £1.5 billion already announced.  [Interruption.] I will come to the detailed points in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that he accepts that resources are finite; if we are talking about a journey, that at least is a start—although his arm may have been twisted by the shadow Chancellor.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs recently told the media:
	"The Lord Chief Justice is quite right to say that when the sentencing framework is set, the impact on the prison population must be properly taken into account".
	I agree. I cannot for the life of me understand why he has come up with his synthetic criticism of a sensible proposal for a sentencing commission that will do exactly that.
	Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. He asked whether the additional 10,500 prison places would be on top of the 9,500 that are already on the way. The answer is yes. That will provide a gross increase of 20,000 additional places. Our aim is that part of that increase should be taken up by closing some older, inefficient prisons so that the net figure is 15,000—provided, of course, that the prison population reaches the median target, which is 96,000, not the high target of 101,000. Those decisions will have to be made in due course, but that is the current position, as I spelled out in my statement.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to 17,000 prisoners doubling up. Doubling up in cells intended for one person is not something that we wish to happen, but under this Government it has not, at any level, ever reached the 47 per cent. of prisoners who were doubled up in the 1980s—and that was with insanitary chamber pots, not internal sanitation. He should pay attention to what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said about prison policy—that we have to look, if need be, at doubling up in some prisons. That is just a little bit behind the times.
	HMP Weir was indeed sold off. It was intended to serve for three years but was used for eight years, and was not at the time regarded as fit for purpose.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about mental health provision in asking whether that should also be available for serious drug offenders. Yes, of course it should. Many, if not most of the mental health patients in prison—this is, in a sense, a semantic point—are also serious drug offenders, so we are in effect talking about the same population. Some drug offenders, particularly egregious drug dealers, do not have mental health problems; they are just straightforward serious criminals who, in my judgment, should stay in prison for a very long time.
	As for how many prisons will be closed, the proposal is that some provision will be closed on a new-for-old basis. However, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list, and I have no intention of compiling a list until we are clear about the development of the programme and capacity.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned having smaller local prisons rather than titans. There is a debate to be had about that, and I am not saying that there is a perfect answer. Our judgment, based on Lord Carter's recommendations, is that a small number of large prisons sited in London and the south-east, where there is an urgent need for prison accommodation, will meet the needs of efficiency, better management of offenders, and reasonable closeness to their homes. However, we are happy to have that debate in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman made some less serious points about community penalties. We have increased the use of community penalties, and their effectiveness has increased too. That is one of the reasons for the increase in the prison population, as is brought out in Lord Carter's report. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of probation offenders who have breached their sentence and are therefore taken back to court, and often sentenced to prison.

David Blunkett: I commend Lord Carter for his second report on this matter, and my right hon. Friend for his response. Given the substantial additional resources, will the budget of the Youth Justice Board also be protected? Will innovative schemes to keep young people out of prison but in secure and structured frameworks be put forward in the consultation, particularly in light of the suggested sentencing commission? The commission might then be able to deal with the situation alluded to by my right hon. Friend relating to indeterminate sentences—that what the House thinks that it is doing does not always come to fruition when the Sentencing Guidelines Council or the courts take a different view of how it can be applied.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and for all the work that he did in developing a more coherent framework in this field. The sentencing commission builds on the excellent work that he did, if I may say so, in setting up the Sentencing Guidelines Council. This money is new money; it will not touch the Youth Justice Board budget. I agree with him about sentences of imprisonment for public protection. The framework was set out and, as I understand it, Members on both sides of the House agreed its purpose, which is that such sentences were for much more serious offenders who would typically get a tariff of two years or much longer. However, it has not quite worked out like that. It is entirely appropriate that we should accept that the system has not operated as intended, and amend it.

David Heath: I thank the Lord Chancellor for early sight of the statement, and I echo his tribute to prison officers and probation officers. I also thank Lord Carter, that most prolific of reviewers, for a thorough report.
	I welcome the recommendations on improved efficiency in the service, on stronger alternatives to custody, and on modernisation of the prison estate. However, in the latter case, why cannot the Lord Chancellor put forward, after, presumably, due consideration over some years, concrete proposals to dispose of antiquated prisons—I almost said Victorian prisons, but we now know that some of them date back to 1500—which would enable those prisons to release capital that could then be reinvested? Do not the plans for emergency places smack more of desperation and panic than proper forward planning?
	The Lord Chancellor announced yet another review, under Lord Bradley, on diverting those with mental illness from prison. That is welcome. However, why is there no commitment in his proposals to build more secure mental health provision, as well as drug centres, within the estate, to ensure that those who should not be in prison are not held in standard prisons but in alternative accommodation?
	I note that Lord Carter agrees with the recommendations of the Corston review on women prisoners, but there appears to be no incorporation of those recommendations into his recommendations. Is not that an omission, and will the Lord Chancellor rectify it in the statement that he is to make in response to the Corston review?
	Does the Lord Chancellor agree that, as is demonstrably the case, short-term sentences are almost completely ineffective in reducing reoffending? Would it not be sensible instead to impose more tougher community sentences, which are proven to be more effective?
	As I think that the Lord Chancellor has said, no judge should be constrained by lack of capacity from imposing custodial sentences that are necessary to protect the public. Will he extend that principle to rehabilitative sentences such as drug treatment or probation?
	Lastly, does the Lord Chancellor agree that the test of any penal policy is what works in protecting the public and reducing reoffending, and that the current system fails both those tests?

Jack Straw: I agree that one test of sentencing policy is what works. I also agree that short-term sentences have often proved not very effective in terms of reducing reoffending. Offenders who get those shorter sentences are often those who have been convicted of what would be regarded as medium or lower-level offences but are persistent offenders, and the courts simply run out of patience with them. As I have often said, prison is often the sentence of last resort. We should do everything we can with such offenders, but it is for the courts to decide for how long they should go to prison. If it is just so that they can be locked up, at least that is a respite for their communities. That is the dilemma that we face.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the proposals. Let me run through his other points. In respect of closing some of the less efficient prisons, it should not be assumed that antiquity is of itself grounds for closure. Otherwise, a large number of Oxford and Cambridge colleges would be closed, as would many schools, which gave some of us a half-decent education, and even this place. The issue with buildings is whether they are efficient and providing a decent service. Some 1960s buildings should come down a lot sooner than some of those of greater antiquity.
	On mental health, I am not personally in favour of putting within prison estates secure mental health provision where prisoners have been sectioned, because it will lead to a problem with the regime. I am happy, however, to pass on the hon. Gentleman's support, along with mine, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in saying that we need more money for secure mental health provision outside prisons.
	The Corston report will be published tomorrow in a written ministerial statement by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and I hope that that will be welcomed.

Neil Gerrard: I have to say that I found my right hon. Friend's statement rather depressing in its assumption that we are going to carry on sending more and more people to prison when we already send more there than virtually any other European country. Although I welcome what he said about Lord Bradley's review, surely we ought be putting far more money into keeping out of prison people who do not need to be there—those with serious mental health problems, fine defaulters and those in for minor breaches of orders. Does his statement on expansion and more resources imply a reversal in the budget cuts in place for the next year, which will affect the probation service and the Prison Service?

Jack Straw: None of us wants to send people to prison just for the sake of it, but prison is there to deal with offenders who are sentenced properly by the courts. The increase in the prison population is one factor—we cannot say exactly what weight to give to it—that has contributed to the significant reduction in crime. We all agree that more should be done to move into the health service prisoners who suffer from serious mental health problems. A great deal has been done; we have abolished the prison health service and we now have NHS staff working on the issue. We hope that more work will be done in future.
	On fine defaulters, I say to my hon. Friend that prison has to be available as a sentence of last resort if people refuse to pay fines. Other disposals are available, but if people go on refusing, they need to be locked up. There are no cuts in the Prison Service or the probation budget.

Alan Beith: Does the Lord Chancellor recognise that short periods of custody are notoriously ineffective for dealing with fine defaulters, breaches of bail conditions or antisocial behaviour order breaches? All those things could probably be more effectively handled by community courts that had a consistent engagement with the offender and were able to keep the offender up to the mark. Will he deal with the tendency in our system to spend the vast resources that go into criminal justice on the most expensive measures, rather than the ones most likely to work?

Jack Straw: If we can deal with offenders outside the prison system, we should, but I repeat that it is not for us to second-guess magistrates or judges when they are making a decision about what to do with a particular offender. Almost always, when they deal with an ASBO breach or a serious fine defaulter, they have been through a range of community sentences and then said, "We've had enough. We're going to take you off the streets for a period." It may or may not be that the person in question decides to get away from criminal habits, but the period for which they are locked up is at least a respite for those whom they have been penalising through their criminal behaviour.

George Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and particularly the implicit recognition that offenders cannot carry on reoffending in the community while they are in prison. I also welcome Lord Carter's proposal for a sentencing commission, which is a good way forward. However, may I ask my right hon. Friend to go a little further still? Does he agree that courts should be determining an appropriate sentence on the basis of the offence itself, and not how many prison places are available on any given day?

Jack Straw: I welcome my right hon. Friend's approval of the recommendations; he comes to the matter with a great deal of expertise, having worked with me as Minister with responsibility for prisons in the 1997 to 2001 Parliament of this Administration.
	It is a matter for the courts to determine the appropriate sentence. There has been no guidance, and nor would there be, to vary sentences according to variations in the prison population. We have responded to rises in the prison population, and we shall continue to do so, hence the increase of 10,500 places on top of the 9,500 already announced, for which the Government are now finding funds.

Kenneth Clarke: Surely the proposal by Lord Carter of a sentencing commission is based on the rather extraordinary proposition that, from time to time, sentencing guidelines should be raised or lowered in line with the current state of the prison population and of overcrowding. Will the Lord Chancellor make it clear whether he is commending and adopting this proposal, as he seemed to be in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), or whether he will refer it to a working party that will give much more consideration to the advantages and disadvantages, and to whether or not it is a good idea? Surely there cannot be any substitute for a situation in which civilised prison accommodation is available for all those whom the courts think it is appropriate and necessary to send to prison. We cannot start having variations over the years according to the state of prison overcrowding—a state that we should not have got into, although we have done so during the past 10 years.

Jack Straw: I try to be ecumenical, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary during a period when police cells were used very extensively, and more extensively than today. He was also Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I know for certain that when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) came to ask for more money for the police, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did not say, "Oh yes. Would you like to write out the cheque?" One of the consequences of his penury was that police numbers were going down at the end of that period, not up.
	However, let me reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He asks whether this is a done deal or whether a working party will further examine the matter. I think that the idea is a good one, on the basis of what I have read, but it is not a done deal. There is a working party, which will be chaired by a senior member of the judiciary, to examine it properly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a serious interest in these matters, and I hope that when he has looked at what Lord Carter says—and also, I may say, a passage in the speech made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs on 26 November that came to similar conclusions—he will support what is proposed.

Julie Morgan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and in particular the changes to indeterminate sentences—the IPP sentences. Will he tell me what he plans to do to reduce the number of young people in prison? In March this year, there were nearly 2,500 15 to 17-year-olds in prison.

Jack Straw: We all wish to see the number of young people in prison reduced if that is consistent with what the courts decide. As it happens, pressure on prisoner status has come from adult offenders in recent months, not from young people. What we have done, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the end of June, is ensure that joint responsibility for the Youth Justice Board and youth provision as a whole for young offenders is held by myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. A joint unit is being established in our Departments to ensure better management of the policy and its operation.

Gregory Campbell: The report proposes a large increase in prison building. When considering any prison estate review, such as the one currently under way in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm that significant emphasis will be given to two things? The first is a unanimous recommendation by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs regarding the location of an existing prison in my constituency. Secondly, there is the fact that not to do as suggested in that recommendation could cost the public purse an additional £60 million through land acquisition.

Jack Straw: As I am also Lord Chancellor of Northern Ireland, I discussed those matters when I visited the courts in Belfast at the start of the judicial year, but this is directly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I will ensure that he is made fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's opinions.

John Battle: At Armley prison in my constituency, 50 people a day go in and 50 a day come out. Nationally, one in seven children have a father who has been or is in prison. It is also well understood that if prisoners have visits from their children, the reoffending rate drops drastically. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend support and perhaps visit the independent charity The Jigsaw Project, which is in a new building outside Armley prison? It is doing excellent work with prisoners and their families, getting results in practice and reducing reoffending. We need to support projects outside as the key to preventing people from going around in circles, in and out of prison.

Jack Straw: I commend my right hon. Friend for his work, and yes is the answer to his question about whether I would be interested in a visit.

Keith Simpson: The Lord Chancellor announced the establishment of a category C prison in the former RAF base at Coltishall, part of which lies in my constituency. In 18 months, the local community has experienced moves from no Department being interested to the Home Office being interested a year ago and definitely intending to establish an immigration and asylum centre there, to the current prospect of a category C prison. The local community is, to say the least, bewildered. What does he mean by providing additional capacity in the short to medium term? What is the time line on that? Will he or one of his Ministers be able to brief local Members of Parliament and the local community fully about all the details associated with the announcement?

Jack Straw: I understand that there has been some uncertainty for the local community. I hope that it may be relatively relieved that the site will be used for a category C prison rather than the potential earlier use, which always causes some excitement in local communities. The prisoners will be locked up and our record on cutting escapes from closed prisons is good. Of course, we will ensure that local Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, and the local council and community are fully briefed. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, says that he is happy to visit the area.

Brian Jenkins: It is a sad day for our society when we have to announce extra prison places. However, I welcome the re-emphasis on prisoners with mental health problems. My right hon. Friend knows that, last year, we processed 700 people out of prison, and we probably took more people with mental health problems into prisons than we processed out of them. Has he considered creating a special prison—a special unit—that could probably process such people more quickly? It could assess them and pass them on to more appropriate locations, thus releasing prison places, but more importantly, leading to treatment for those suffering from mental illness.

Jack Straw: Many health care centres, for example in Preston, which is an old prison but has transformed its health care provision in recent years, perform the function that my hon. Friend describes. We want to examine greater and more flexible arrangements for health care in prison. Some of the committed NHS staff who work in Preston put proposals to me when I was there with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) in September. Of course, we will examine those matters. The aim is to keep serious, long-term mental health patients out of the prison system.

Norman Lamb: Like the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), my interest is based on the location of former RAF Coltishall in my constituency, where it is largely situated, although it overlaps into his. Does not the announcement about it smack of chaos, confusion and crisis management? When the site was first offered to the Home Office two years ago, it showed no interest. Last year, we were told that an assessment had concluded that it was not an appropriate site for a prison. For a year, its potential as an immigration centre was considered, while it decayed. Now we are told that it is appropriate for a prison. What has changed since the assessment last year? We have known about the trends in prison numbers for some time. There is concern in the local community. Will the Minister with responsibility for prisons agree to meet the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk and me?

Jack Straw: If you do not mind my saying so, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman could take some lessons from his Conservative neighbour in seriously representing his constituents.
	We all understand that there will be a period of uncertainty about the use of redundant military land. Indeed, that applies to all large areas of land that become available. Of course, if it is Government land, several possible uses will be considered. We can either conduct that consideration in secret—in my judgment, there is no case for doing so in areas such as the one that we are discussing—or as ideas come through, we can share them with the local community. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the latter, and believes that we should go back to the old days before the Freedom of Information Act 2000, let him put that on the record. Sometimes we say that we are considering an idea and we then take account of the local community's views and, as in the case of candidates for asylum and immigration centres, of whether the numbers are decreasing—and they have decreased dramatically.
	In our judgment, the proposal is a sensible use of the camp. We all understand that proposals for prisons cause some nervousness in the local community. However, all the evidence shows that there is no adverse effect on house prices—we have data to prove that. Once prisons are established, they prove popular with the local community, and it will be difficult to close those that become candidates for closure in future.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: With three prisons and a young offenders institution in my constituency, I greatly welcome the statement and the measures to reduce prison overcrowding. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that prison officers and probation staff will be fully involved in developing non-custodial sentences and deciding the circumstances in which they can be applied, including finding alternatives to prison for non-violent vulnerable women and people with mental health problems?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. I hope that she is looking forward to the publication of the Government's response to the Corston report tomorrow.

Adam Price: Greater proximity to home and family networks is, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) suggested, a major factor in helping reduce reoffending rates. With that in mind, does today's statement mean that we will finally get a prison in north Wales for the first time, and a women's prison in Wales for the first time? Can we get more secure facilities for young people in Wales so that we do not have to send so many young offenders hundreds of miles away to institutions in England?

Jack Straw: Yes. If one looks at the map, it is patent that, while north-west England—my area—has many prisons, north Wales does not, although there are five prisons in south Wales. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the Minister with responsibility for prisons, represents a north Wales constituency, and we are considering sites in north Wales. If we can find a suitable site, we shall use it, I hope with the full support of constituency Members.

Nick Hurd: Can the Lord Chancellor clarify how many of the 10,500 new places will be new cells?

Jack Straw: I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details. Most of the prisons are entirely new build. We are also putting rapid build units into existing sites, but I emphasise that we are considering a building programme.

Benefits Uprating

Mike O'Brien: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the annual social security uprating statement and a broader statement on pensions. I will place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for the figures to be published in the  Official Report.
	As in previous years, most national insurance benefits will rise by September's retail price index, which is up by 3.9 per cent. Most income-related benefits will rise by September's Rossi index, which is RPI less housing costs, and is up by 2.3 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, from April 2008 the basic state pension will increase to £90.70, which is up by £3.40. For couples, the standard rate will rise to £145.05, which is up by £5.45. That is a real-terms rise of 10 per cent., or more than £47.30, since 1997.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that the standard minimum guarantee part for pension credit, which has risen with earnings since 2003, will from next April rise by £5 a week for single pensioners and £7.65 for couples. That means that from April next year, no single pensioner should live on less than £124.05 a week, and no couple on less than £189.35 a week. That is an increase of £57 for a single pensioner and £85 for couples since 1997.
	Since 1997, pensioner poverty has reduced by more than a third as a result of targeted support from pension credit and £11 billion of extra funding. That has lifted more than 1 million pensioners out of relative poverty. As a result, pensioner households are on average £1,500 a year, or £29 a week, better off in real terms. The poorest pensioner households are around £2,200 a year, or £42 a week, better off. That underlines our commitment to target resources where the need is greatest.
	That is a commitment that I can reinforce today. I can announce a package of changes for introduction in October 2008 to simplify further the state pension system. The package is cost-neutral over the long term and will be paid for by reducing the backdating of pension credit from 12 months to three months, as from next October. Twelve-month backdating was introduced in 2003 to ease the introduction of pension credit. The new changes will make better use of these resources and, I understand, will be broadly welcomed by Help the Aged and Age Concern. The changes that we intend to introduce will make the system less confusing, less intrusive and more transparent. We want the customer to be able to get their state pension entitlements with the minimum fuss, bureaucracy and form filling.
	In 2005, we made some improvements. Those applying for pension credit by telephone have been able to get council tax benefit and housing benefit together, using a shortened claim form completed by the Pension Service. The form is then sent out to the customer to sign and send to their local council. Many pensioners do not send the form on, however, and so lose out. We aim to improve on that by being more efficient and more joined up. We intend for council tax benefit and housing benefit claims to be made over the telephone in exactly the same way as those for state pension and pension credit. The claim will be taken by the Pension Service and automatically passed to the local council for assessment. No more action will be needed by the pensioner. They can access up to four benefits in one telephone call: pension credit, state pension, housing benefit and council tax benefit. About 50,000 pensioners will gain from the measure by 2010. We also plan to align the rules on backdating of pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit with those on the working age benefits. That will reduce complexity and make the application process less intrusive.
	These days, some pensioners spend longer periods abroad in warmer countries. They currently lose their pension credit after only four weeks. We intend to change the pension credit rules that relate to the length of time that pensioners can spend abroad before their benefit is affected. We will align pension credit with the rules on housing benefit and council tax benefit, so that benefit will continue for up to 13 weeks. That will mean that almost 90 per cent. of the pensioners who would currently have their pension credit stopped will in future retain their entitlement.
	Those changes will be taken with two further measures in the pensions Bill that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to put before the House today. Those measures will simplify the rules relating to the additional state pension and remove the need for most pension credit customers aged 75 and over to tell us about changes in their retirement income. More than 1 million pensioners will benefit through not having to complete a review of their income and capital, because we believe that income and capital do not increase much for most people after 75.
	We will also uprate benefits and allowances for the working population. Child allowances linked to the income-related benefits will be increased in parallel with the child tax credits. This is intended to ensure that families receiving those benefits see the full value of increases in child tax credits. In particular, the allowance paid for a child dependant will increase by £5.14 a week from next April to £52.59, which is a rise of almost 11 per cent.
	As in previous years, the uprating provides an opportunity to deal with anomalies and make the system simpler. So from next April, the single person rate for income support and jobseeker's allowance will be the same for all 16 to 24-year-olds. For the small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who claim, this amounts to an increase of £12.30, uplifting their weekly benefit from £35.65 to £47.95. That will tackle a perverse incentive that exists in the current system to leave home to receive more benefits. The change will also provide extra help to some vulnerable teenagers, as well as simplifying the benefit structure.
	To return to pensions, our first priority was to tackle pensioner poverty and ensure that everyone shared in rising prosperity. Our next priority is to put in place a pensions system for the future. The good news is that on average we can expect to live longer, but that has consequences. Measures in the Pensions Act 2007, passed earlier in the year, will tackle gender inequality in the state system, providing a more generous basic state pension, restoring the earnings link and giving people a clear picture of what the state will provide and what they need to do for themselves. Measures to be introduced in Parliament later today will take the next step in the reforms by encouraging saving and extending for the first time the benefits of pension saving with minimum mandatory contributions from an employer across the working age population, and by giving everyone the opportunity to create a retirement income that helps them to meet their aspirations. In bringing forward these measures, we will continue to support existing final salary pension provision.
	I am pleased to announce that we are today publishing the Government's response to the deregulatory review consultation. The response summarises the comments that we received and outlines the further action that will be taken. We are grateful for all the responses received and for the detailed consideration that many have already given to the issues involved. We want to reduce burdens on employers who provide good workplace pension schemes, but we need to balance that against maintaining adequate protection for pension scheme members. That is not easy to achieve, but without action, the slide away from final salary schemes could turn into a rush.
	We intend to reduce the statutory cap on the revaluation of deferred pensions from 5 to 2.5 per cent. for pension rights that will build up from a future date. That change will not affect pension rights that are already earned. We will include the changes needed to achieve that in the pensions Bill that I hope to introduce this afternoon. In addition, we will take forward some issues through secondary legislation or guidance, and work with stakeholders to explore the scope to address concerns that have been raised in other areas. This includes a statutory override to enable employers and trustees to agree changes to pension schemes, which will enable them to benefit from statutory and regulatory changes. That has proved difficult for some schemes in the past. Copies of the detailed response will be placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.
	The cost of uprating benefits for next year is nearly £4 billion, with more than £2.75 billion of that going to pensioners. The further simplification measures that I have announced today, together with those that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward in the pensions Bill, represent a substantial further investment in social justice, reducing poverty and helping those in need. I commend the statement to the House.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in letting me have a copy of his statement in advance.
	We on the Conservative Benches of course do not oppose the uprating of benefits, although we have issues with the administration and complexity of the system, as well as with the disincentives to both work and saving that are inherent in it. Can the Minister update the House on the Department's efforts to tackle fraud and error in the system? It is bad enough that the Government are so inept at dealing with people's confidential records, but why are they still paying out more than £5 billion through fraud and error in the benefits system? Can he confirm that benefit payments have been going to prisoners, students and those who are already in work? Can he also confirm that, at the same time as that largesse at the taxpayer's expense is going on, up to £2.5 billion of pension credit went unclaimed last year—a rise of £500 million on 2004-05?
	May I welcome the proposal for 1 million pensioners not to have to review their income and capital? However, can the Minister confirm that there will be losers from reducing the backdating for pension credit from 12 to three months? How many does he estimate there will be? What steps will he take to ensure that pensioners are aware of this change in the rules? Is it not the case that the saving made by the change is simply being transferred to, I hope, an increased take-up of means-tested benefits?
	Is it not simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Can he confirm that almost 40 per cent. of those entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it, and that pensioners are the worst category in that regard? Is it true that the take-up of the benefit has fallen—fallen—by 12 per cent. since 1997? I therefore welcome the proposals in the statement to increase take-up, but why has it taken so long to produce them? Have the Government not tested to destruction the system of means-tested benefits to the extent that the poorest pensioners are becoming poorer in real terms? Will he explain the Government's failure yet again to provide help to pensioners with their council tax bills?
	The Minister made much in his statement of what the Government are allegedly doing for pensioners. While he mentioned the restoration of the link between the state pension and average earnings, he gave no clue whatever as to when that might happen. Previously, it has been said that it would happen in 2012 or 2015, or not even then if it was unaffordable. When will it happen?
	As the Minister pointed out, there is a broad measure of consensus over long-term pensions reform. My party supports the overall pensions settlement emerging from the Turner commission. In our last election manifesto, we embraced auto-enrolment and the need to boost pension savings. But does he accept that we have legitimate concerns about the design of personal accounts? In recent weeks, Ministers and others have tried to shut down debate on those important issues by suggesting that the official Opposition were in some way undermining the consensus. I wholly reject that argument. Does he not accept that it is the job of the official Opposition to question? We have serious questions about the effects of means-testing on pensions saving.
	The Pensions Policy Institute has identified at-risk groups who will be no better or worse off as a result of being auto-enrolled into personal accounts. Can the Minister confirm that he takes the issue seriously? Does he appreciate that whatever politicians might say, commentators and journalists are bound to write the story that some people will not be better off? It is fundamentally an issue of confidence, which has been badly shaken by the pensions crisis. Will he make a statement in the near future on proposals to deal with the problem?
	While we are on the subject of confidence, will the Minister confirm that he will shortly receive and publish the Young report, and bring forward proposals for compensation in response to pension victims' legitimate claims?
	We broadly support the measures mentioned by the Minister in response to the deregulatory review. I assure him of our broad support on the revaluation of deferred pensions and on the statutory override. If we are to stem the disastrous decline in defined benefit schemes, however, Ministers must be more radical and courageous. I assure him that he will have our encouragement and support in looking at radical options such as risk-sharing.
	On personal accounts, is it not most unfortunate that the new chairman of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, Paul Myners, has rendered his position wholly untenable, given his intemperate attack on the official Opposition from his civil service position and his record as a Labour donor?
	Finally, does the Minister accept that with nearly 2 million pensioners living in poverty, 125,000 pension victims, nearly 5 million people claiming out-of-work benefits, and the highest proportion of children living in workless households in the whole of the European Union, the complacency that peppers his statement today is grossly misplaced?

Mike O'Brien: It is interesting to read what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said last year and compare it with what he says today. In the past, he said that the Government would do nothing about the Turner report, but we passed one Bill in July and are about to introduce a further Bill. He claimed that nothing would be done about the Child Support Agency, but we have just taken through legislation in relation to it.
	We made it absolutely clear that we would reduce pensioner poverty, and the whole statement is about ensuring that. We are putting an extra £11 billion into helping pensioners. That money would not have been in the system had the Conservatives maintained office in 1997. Two million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty, and 1 million out of relative poverty. Those are enormously good figures. Had the Conservatives stayed in power, pensioners would be on £69 a week. Instead, no pensioner need be on less than £119 a week, and that figure will rise next April to £124 for a single pensioner.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about a number of issues, including those in relation to fraud. We are committed to protecting the integrity of the benefits system and ensuring that we pay our customers the right benefits at the right time. May I make it clear that fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance has been reduced by about two thirds since we took over from the Conservatives? It is down from 7.2 per cent. to 2.1 per cent., and is now the lowest ever recorded. Since 1997, our Department has put enormous effort into reducing fraud in the benefits system, with great success. Fraud now stands at its lowest level—down from an estimated £2 billion in 2001. As well as changing the way in which fraud is dealt with, we are addressing error in the system through benefit simplification. Today's announcements will help in that process.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked how we would ensure that people were able to claim pension credit. Our officials are ready today to accept telephone calls from pensioners who wish to claim pension credit. I know that the changes announced today will be welcomed by some of the pensioners' organisations, as they have asked for them in their conversations with me for some time. The whole basis of those changes is to ensure that take-up of pension credit increases and that people get help with their council tax. Those who are on low incomes and struggling with council tax, many of whom did not fill in the form that they got from the Pension Service, and did not send it on to their local authority and get the benefit to which they were entitled, will no longer have to sign that form. Many of them thought that the form was confusing and did not want to sign it. In future, that form will be dealt with automatically by the Pension Service, and pensioners will not have to worry about it, sign it or pass it on to local councils. That will not only be a saving for local councils; I hope that it will ensure that more people who are entitled to help with their council tax get it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about losers in relation to the backdating. There will be no actual losers, as we are redistributing the money within the budget— [Interruption.] I see that Opposition Front-Bench Members are chortling. Overall, there will not be losers, as the money will be redistributed within the budget. During the next nine months, we will encourage some people to make the application before the change is introduced. There need be no losers in the long term either. We want those who are entitled to claim the backdating for 12 months to make that claim before next October. We will therefore work with some of the pensioners' organisations to ensure that we support their campaign to get more people to apply.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Young report in relation to the financial assistance scheme. We hope to receive the Young report shortly—I have not yet seen a copy of it, but I hope to get it within days. We will then consider it, and I hope to announce in due course our response to that report.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned proposals in relation to risk-sharing, which he said that he supported. We have looked into that and we could look at it more broadly, but I am not anxious to rewrite the whole of pensions and trust law in order to bring it in. That would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might find it worth talking to some leading figures in the CBI, as some are a little concerned that it might lead to a movement from defined benefit schemes into the new system, as some companies are not prepared to go straight from such defined benefit schemes into defined contribution schemes. The issues around this subject should be examined with great care, but I do not want to rush into this just yet.
	The hon. Gentleman said that his party supported Turner and automatic enrolment and, indeed, wanted to ensure that it was a success. I accept the hon. Gentleman's good faith in saying that, because I think he has been broadly supportive. I have to say, however, that his colleague, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has not filled me with any confidence that he takes that view; nor is it the case, I also have to say, that he has adopted the same role as his predecessor in supporting personal accounts. I have seen the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell take every opportunity to run down the whole idea of personal accounts. I think he needs to be really careful, as we have built a consensus on it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne for contributing to it, but I warn him that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell takes every opportunity, as I said, to undermine it.
	We are now looking at another example, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has raised questions about the chairman of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, Mr. Paul Myners. He has a record for dealing with issues in the City, which meant that when he was appointed by a perfectly proper procedure, he was been broadly welcomed by stakeholders as a serious figure with a strong record. He has a world-class business record and extensive knowledge of financial services. Judged in a fair and open competition as the best man to lead PADA, his appointment has been widely welcomed by the industry, yet the hon. Gentleman has now attacked him. I ask myself whether this is yet another example of that hon. Member taking the opportunity to have a go— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members still wish to question the Minister, so perhaps he could draw his remarks to a close.

Mike O'Brien: I know that Paul Myners has written to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, pointing out that while that hon. Member may not find his company of the sort that he would want, it appears that the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry matters invited Mr. Myners to dinner after "Question Time". We seem to have a slight split on the Tory Front Bench there. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will continue to support personal accounts and perhaps put the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell back in his box.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for advance notice of his statement. The uprating announced today will be welcomed by many, but tackling poverty must be the key test against which such statements are judged. On that basis, some serious questions need to be answered. Even with today's rise, the state pension is still worth less than it was in 1950. Is it not simply unjustifiable that the uprating in line with earnings is to be delayed until 2012 at the earliest?
	Can the Minister confirm that, yet again, there is no uprating of the winter fuel payment? Is he not aware that due to rising fuel prices, that payment is now worth roughly half its value when introduced, leading many to slide back into fuel poverty? The Minister has talked about backdating the pension credit, but is he not aware that with between 1.2 million and 1.7 million people not claiming it, there will inevitably be some individual losers, notwithstanding the fact that money is being redistributed, as he rightly said, within the pension pot?
	While the steps the Minister is taking to simplify the application process for pensioners are welcome, is he not accepting by doing so that complexity is a major barrier to benefit take-up? Does he not agree that with 51 different benefits and 250 different rates, Britain's benefit system is the most complex in the world? Does he not further agree that that complexity makes the system a nightmare for many who will wish to claim today's uprated benefits such as pension credit? Is it not time to seek much greater simplification—through the introduction of a single working age benefit, for example? Does the Minister also agree that deep public anxiety about data security within the Department for Work and Pensions and about tax credits could also undermine benefit take-up? What reassurance can he offer to give claimants confidence in how their data will be handled by his Department?
	The Minister mentions the pensions Bill, and we will carefully study the proposals on deregulation. The personal accounts scheme is welcome, but does the Minister share my concern that the mass means-testing of pensioners continued by today's statement could muddy the waters for many people about whether saving is worthwhile? What steps is he taking to ensure that those people, and those with huge personal debts, will have access to appropriate advice to ensure that they are able to take the right decision?
	One group of pensioners—the 125,000 whose pension schemes have collapsed—will have heard nothing of comfort in today's statement. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to publish the results of the Young review? Is it his intention, as was reported in the press at the weekend, that the assets within the unclaimed scheme should be privatised? Would it not make more sense to hand those assets over to the management of the Pension Protection Fund, which has shown considerable expertise? That matter cannot wait much longer and I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances on that.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many individual conversations going on in the Chamber, which is making it very difficult to hear what is going on.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asked about the earnings link, and we have already legislated to ensure that it will be brought in after 2012 during the course of that Parliament.
	As to winter fuel payments, we never intended them to cover all the costs of heating, lighting and so forth for pensioners. It has rather been a contribution towards those costs. We know—and I know from my time as Energy Minister—that fuel prices dipped, but they have now come back up, which has meant significant changes in the cost of fuel on the market. However, as a result of our uprating of various benefits, particularly pension credit, for the poorest pensioners and the more general improvement in benefits and pensions for retired people, we also know that their income has steadily risen. They should be able to deal with issues around fuel poverty; indeed, we have been able to improve their position with respect to it. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about winter fuel payments, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as I can see, however, the record on winter fuel payments from 1997 to now is an extremely good one.
	The take-up of pension credit has been a long-term issue. It is the case that we have written as many as four or five times to some of the people who we think should be claiming pension credit. For various reasons—they may not want to fill in the forms, or they may feel that they would not get very much—they decide not to. Some of them are surprised when they make a claim, as they receive far more than they expected. We are still working to encourage people to take up pension credit. Indeed, we hope to visit as many as 600,000 pensioners during the coming year to see if we can encourage better take-up. The changes that will come into force in October 2008 will provide quite an incentive for people to move forward and take up pension credit between now and then.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to complexity, which has been a long-term problem for the pensions sector. Through the Pensions Act 2007, and indeed the new pensions Bill, we aim to simplify and clarify a very complex system indeed. The changes I have announced today, particularly the automaticity of benefit application, will help ensure that some of that complexity is dealt with.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about data security. Personal accounts will require the transfer of some data between HMRC and the pensions regulator. We want to ensure that it is transferred in an appropriate and proper way and that proper controls are undertaken in respect of it.
	As for means-testing, we have sought to use it to ensure that we tackle the key issue of pensioner poverty. We have had considerable success in doing that, and the proposals that I have announced will help us to build on our record, but there is still much more that we can do. Changes that we are making in the way in which benefits are available will, over time, start to reduce some of the means-testing. We have never been in favour of it, but it is one of the best ways of targeting help on the poorest people.
	I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman a publication date for the Young review. I want to be able to look at it and consider it, and I know that it is likely to be quite a complex report. I hope to receive it in the next few days, and although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a commitment, I hope to be able to say something about it before Christmas.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned some report in the weekend press. Let me say to him that obtaining information from the press is never wise.

Brian Jenkins: We all welcome upratings, but does my good friend the Minister intend to write to all the people in our community who attain the age of 80 this year, and along with it entitlement to the old age allowance, and inform them of what they should do with their new-found wealth when the allowance rises from 25p to 26p? Might it include buying a second-class postage stamp, or saving up for a first-class postage stamp? Is it not about time that this award, which is neither use nor ornament, was laid to rest?

Mike O'Brien: I have to say that my hon. Friend sounds a bit like my mum. My mum has just turned 80, and she said, "That 25p was a bit of an insult"—and a good friend of mine, Gwen Johnson, who runs the Atherstone pensioners convention, said, "You need to get rid of that 25p, Mike." I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and I hope that we will be able to take some steps. I want to deal with what many pensioners regard as an insult, but if we do that, there must be a compensation measure. I hope that in due course we will be able to ensure not only that pensioners do not receive just 25p, but that they do not lose out as a result of any change.

Philip Hollobone: What is the official estimate of the rate of inflation as it applies to pensioners, and how does it compare with the proposed increase in the state pension next year? Of the alleged £1,500 real increase in the state pension in the past 10 years, what percentage, on average, has been taken up by council tax rises?

Mike O'Brien: This year the retail prices index is above earnings levels, and we have therefore increased the pension by the higher rate to ensure that people do not lose out. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about council tax, the answer is that—as with many things—it depends. It depends on whether someone is able to access the various benefits that are available to help people on the lowest incomes with their council tax. Numerous people across the country will benefit from some of the proposals that I have announced: we estimate that by 2010 up to 50,000 pensioners will be helped, many of them as a result of claiming benefits relating to council tax.
	As was mentioned earlier, we have had problems in getting people to claim their pension credit, so we are making changes in relation to take-up. We are launching a campaign to inform people that they need not pay so much council tax, and that if they telephone the Pension Service it will not only ensure that they pay less, but perhaps enable them to claim pension credit at the same time. Reducing council tax would provide quite an incentive. People do not like paying taxes but they may also object to claiming benefits, and I hope that the council tax incentive can be used to get people on to benefits and lift them out of poverty.

Derek Conway: The Minister's statement has been rightly welcomed in all parts of the House, but may I press him on the proposal—itself very welcome—to ensure that information is sent automatically to councils, especially when it concerns council tax and housing benefits? Will the Department encourage local authorities to make that facility widely known to council tax payers in particular? Given that administration can vary slightly between authorities, will the Minister monitor them to ensure that the system is implemented fairly and quickly? Many people are a little confused by all the form-filling and demands, and it is important for them to interpret his initiatives positively.

Mike O'Brien: Yes, that is important. I hesitate to tell local authorities what to do, because they always object to it and then demand money. We will work with Age Concern and Help the Aged during the coming year to encourage take-up of pension credit. We hope and intend to introduce the changes that will establish automaticity—as the jargon has it—by October next year. People will then be able to claim a number of benefits with just one telephone call.
	I believe that working with voluntary organisations on a national basis to mount our campaign will give us a considerable voice out there, but I hope that we can persuade local authorities to join in. Telling pensioners about, for example, the extra help with free transport that we will be giving them next year might provide authorities with a good opportunity to say to them, "Actually, you can claim backdated pension credit until October, and after that a telephone call might well result in your paying less council tax and receiving more help in the form of pension credit." The hon. Gentleman is right: the opportunities are significant.

Angus MacNeil: Fuel poverty is the big issue for pensioners. In Stornoway, diesel costs £1.19 a litre. How does the Minister propose to help pensioners in rural and island communities who must pay more tax on fuel than people anywhere else in the United Kingdom and thus, probably, in the world? Ironically, pensioners incur those costs when they collect their pensions, and when they go shopping. On large islands such as Lewis and Uist, 50-mile return journeys are not unknown. Just what can the Minister do?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman rightly talks of his island communities, but rural communities throughout the United Kingdom are affected by problems relating to distance. That is why we have a strategy to help rural areas, which has been announced by my colleagues in other Departments.
	There are higher costs associated with living in beautiful areas. Such areas often require a degree of hardiness, given the problems that exist in them. We want to find ways of providing further assistance, particularly for pensioners, some of whom may be infirm and may experience difficulties with travel arrangements.

Robert Smith: The Minister has rightly recognised that failure to take up pension credit means that some of the poorest pensioners are missing out on something to which they are entitled. The view of those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is that we should deal with the problem by reducing the need for means-testing. The Minister is trying to simplify the process and I wish him success with that, but to help us to judge his success in a year's time, will he give us estimates of the number of people who he thinks are currently missing out on pension credit and the figure to which he expects that number to fall if his campaign has been a success?

Mike O'Brien: It will not all have been done in a year's time. A year from now the system will have been in place for only a couple of months, and I think it ambitious to try to tie me down to a figure representing a change over a couple of months. It is ambitious on the hon. Gentleman's part, and giving such a figure would certainly be ambitious on mine. What we have said is that we expect the introduction of the automatic entitlement as a result of a single telephone call to lift about 50,000 pensioners out of poverty by 2010.

Point of Order

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I could seek your advice on how to correct misinformation in a particular case. I have here a document that states:
	"The Electoral Commission had referred matters to the Police therefore aspects of the Whitty review would have to be placed on hold."
	That is in confidential minutes written by Michael Cashman, MEP. Earlier, the Prime Minister denied that. Obviously, that was inadvertent. How can we get the Prime Minister back to the Chamber to correct the record, so that the whole world will know that, in fact, the Whitty review has to be placed on hold because the police are involved?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, and I suggest that he write to the individual concerned to get clarification on the point he has raised on the Floor of the House.

BILLs PRESENTED
	 — 
	Pensions

Mr. Secretary Hain, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Des Browne, Mr. Secretary Hutton, Mr. Secretary Woodward, Mr. Mike O'Brien and Mr. James Plaskitt, presented a Bill to make provision relating to pensions, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 25].

Planning and Energy

Mr. Michael Fallon, supported by John Battle, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Martin Caton, Colin Challen, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Hugh Bayley, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Michael Jack, Julia Goldsworthy and Chris Huhne, presented a Bill to enable local planning authorities to set requirements for energy generation and energy efficiency in local plans: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed. [Bill 17].

Special Educational Needs (Information)

Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, supported by Lyn Brown, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Kelvin Hopkins, Ms Angela C. Smith, Anne Snelgrove, John Bercow, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Mark Oaten and Stephen Williams, presented a Bill to amend the Education Act 1996 in relation to the provision and publication of information about children who have special educational needs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed [Bill 26].

Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment)

Andrew Miller, supported by Tony Lloyd, Mr. George Howarth, Margaret Moran, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Andrew Smith, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Alun Michael, Mr. Kevan Jones, Ms Dawn Butler, Ben Chapman and Ann Clwyd, presented a Bill to provide for the protection of temporary and agency workers; to require the principle of equal treatment to be applied to temporary and agency workers; to make provision about the enforcement of rights of temporary and agency workers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February, and to be printed [Bill 27].

British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals)

Mr. Julian Brazier, supported by Mr. John Gummer, Keith Vaz, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Jim Hood, Stephen Pound, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mrs. Nadine Dorries, Jim Dobbin, Mr. David Burrowes and Mr. Greg Hands, presented a Bill to make provision for parliamentary scrutiny of senior appointments to the British Board of Film Classification and of guidelines produced by it; to establish a body with powers to hear appeals against the release of videos and DVDs and the classification of works in prescribed circumstances; to make provision about penalties for the distribution of illegal works; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 29 February, and to be printed [Bill 16].

Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment)

Mr. John Heppell, supported by Mr. Anthony Wright, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Robert Flello, Mr. Fraser Kemp, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Michael Clapham, Ms Dari Taylor, Janet Anderson and Rosemary McKenna, presented a Bill to extend the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to the acquisition and disposal of substantial shareholdings by private equity companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].

Animals Act 1971 (Amendment)

Mr. Stephen Crabb, supported by Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. Roger Williams, Mr. Richard Benyon, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Kate Hoey, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Tim Farron and Barry Gardiner, presented a Bill to amend the Animals Act 1971 to limit strict liability for damage done by animals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].

Food Products (Marketing to Children)

Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mary Creagh, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Andrew George, Bob Spink and Stephen Williams, presented a Bill to make provision about the advertising, marketing and promotion of food and drink products to children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 19].

Environmental Protection (Transfers at Sea)

Mark Lazarowicz, supported by Mr. David Anderson, Derek Conway, Nigel Griffiths, Mr. David Hamilton, Mr. John MacDougall, Anne Moffat, Bob Spink, Dr. Gavin Strang, Mr. Mike Weir and John Barrett, presented a Bill to make provision about transfers of cargo at sea; to provide for environmental safeguards in relation to such transfers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed [Bill 20].

Health and Safety (Offences)

Keith Hill presented a Bill to revise the mode of trial and maximum penalties applicable to certain offences relating to health and safety: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 29].

Energy Saving (Daylight)

Mr. Tim Yeo, supported by Peter Bottomley, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Lembit Opik, Richard Ottaway, Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. John Whittingdale and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to advance time by one hour throughout the year to create lighter evenings, for an experimental period; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 21].

Voting Age (Reduction)

Julie Morgan, supported by Natascha Engel, Jo Swinson, Roger Berry, John Bercow, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Jenny Willott, Mrs. Betty Williams, Peter Bottomley, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Hywel Williams and Ms Katy Clark, presented a Bill to reduce the voting age for parliamentary and other elections to 16 years: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed [Bill 22].

Fixed Term Parliaments

David Howarth, supported by Mr. David Heath, Simon Hughes, Chris Huhne, Danny Alexander, Lynne Featherstone, Mr. Nick Clegg, Mr. Paul Burstow, Paul Rowen, Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Peter Bone, presented a Bill to fix the date of the next general election and all subsequent elections; to forbid the dissolution of Parliament otherwise than in accordance with this Act; to allow the House of Commons to change the day of the week on which a general election is held; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Forces Widows' Pensions (Equality of Treatment)

Mr. Michael Mates, supported by Mr. Bruce George, Sir Menzies Campbell, Patrick Mercer, Mr. Michael Clapham, Nick Harvey, Peter Viggers, Derek Conway, Simon Hughes and Sir Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to provide for the equal treatment of Forces widows' pensions in respect of retirement from military service for the periods before 1973 and between 1973 and 2005; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed [Bill 31].

Leasehold Reform

Simon Hughes, supported by John Hemming, Mr. Nick Clegg, Greg Mulholland, Paul Rowen, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mark Hunter, Stephen Williams, Andrew Stunell, Paul Holmes, Bob Russell and Lynn Featherstone, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to long leaseholders; to confer further powers on leaseholders; to make provision in relation to leaseholders in local council owned property and property owned by other social landlords; to confer powers on landlords to create sinking funds; to make requirements of landlords relating to the management of property; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February, and to be printed [Bill 32].

Borough Freedom

Derek Conway, supported by Mr. Graham Allen, Janet Anderson, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Roger Gale, Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Mr. Keith Simpson and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to enable rights of admission to the freedom of cities or towns to be extended to women; to enable other amendments relating to admission to be made; to confer powers to admit persons as honorary freemen of certain places in the Confederation of the Cinque Ports; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed [Bill 23].

Sound Recordings (Copyright Term Extension)

Pete Wishart, supported by Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Mark Field, Sandra Gidley, John Robertson, Rosemary McKenna, Adam Price, Mr. Greg Knight, John Hemming, Stewart Hosie, Kelvin Hopkins and Janet Anderson, presented a Bill to extend beyond 50 years the copyright term of sound recordings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 33].

Environmental Protection (Airports)

Justine Greening, supported by Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Nick Hurd, Adam Afriyie, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Edward Garnier, John McDonnell, David Taylor, Susan Kramer, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Mark Prisk and Mr. Greg Hands, presented a Bill to promote the protection of the environment near airports; to establish a body to monitor the environmental impact of airports and to report on levels of pollution; to confer certain powers on that body; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 34].

Public Sector Buildings (Energy Performance)

Anne Snelgrove, supported by Lyn Brown, Colin Challen, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. John Gummer, Andrew Gwynne, Mrs. John Humble, David Howarth, Martin Horwood, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Tim Yeo and Dr. Alan Whitehead, presented a Bill to make further provision about energy efficiency and microgeneration in public sector buildings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 35].

Foreign Nationals (Statistics)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Nick Harvey, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. John Whittingdale and Mr. Tom Clarke, presented a Bill to establish a requirement on local authorities to transfer certain statistics relating to nationality to the Office for National Statistics; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 May, and to be printed [Bill 36].

Disqualification from Parliament (Taxation Status)

Mr. Gordon Prentice, supported by Paul Flynn, Kelvin Hopkins, David Heyes, Ms Katy Clark, Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Gavin Strang, Lynne Jones, Dr. Ian Gibson, Clive Efford and Andrew Mackinlay , presented a Bill to make provision for disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the House of Lords on grounds relating to residence and domicile for taxation purposes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed [Bill 24].

ESTIMATES DAY
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]
	 — 
	SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2007-08

Cabinet Office

Standards of Conduct in Public Life

[Relevant documents:  Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Public  A dministration, Session  2006-07, HC 121-I, on Ethics and Standards: The Regulation of Conduct in Public  Life, and the Government's response, First Special Report, Session 2007-08  HC 88. ]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Cabinet Office—
	(1) the resources authorised for use be reduced by £10,596,000, as set out in HC 29,
	(2) the sum authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £2,938,000 as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.— [Siobhain McDonagh.]

Tony Wright: It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on some of the work of the Public Administration Committee, and in particular its work on "Ethics and Standards: The Regulation of Conduct in Public Life". I was going to say that this is a timely debate, but I could have said that at almost any point in the recent past.
	I wish to begin by paying a most sincere tribute to my fellow Committee members. They are an outstanding collection of people. I have been privileged to have a number of them as members of the Committee for some time, and then for it to have been refreshed by some excellent new arrivals. I am sure that the Committee has built up a collective spirit and a way of operating that has contributed greatly to its work. I also pay tribute to the Committee's excellent staff, particularly our departing Clerk, Eve Samson, who managed to keep us on the straight and narrow in our dealings with Scotland Yard in the past year or so, which was not always entirely easy. We had a party for her last night, and I hope that Eve was feeling all right this morning.
	The PAC's work concerns itself with the conduct of government in a general sense, and it is worth reminding ourselves that that concern has two main aspects, and that it always has done. We can go back 150 years to the famous Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, which reformed the civil service and put it on its modern basis of appointment by merit. The importance of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms was that they concerned themselves with the proper conduct of government in two senses. One sense was propriety—that patronage was wrong. The other was that patronage was inefficient—that it produced an inefficient state. Therefore, the Committee has always concerned itself with those two elements of what the proper conduct of government is: the more narrowly defined issue of propriety, and the more general issue of effectiveness and efficiency. That is consistent with the traditions of public service reform that began in the 19th century on the back of Northcote-Trevelyan, the foundation of the system associated with the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the civil service commissioners. Those are the great 19th century reforms that we have built on in our own times.
	The Committee's recent work has ranged widely over the conduct of government in the sense of propriety—I shall leave aside the question of efficiency and effectiveness for the moment. We have concerned ourselves with the need for a Bill to bring the civil service into statute, and I am delighted that we are finally to get that. The Committee is unique in having vented its frustration at not getting such a Bill by drafting one itself and showing the Government how it could be done. I believe that this is the first time that that has happened in the modern period, but I am sure that it helped the Government to frame their thoughts, and I am glad that the Bill is to be included in the constitutional reform legislation.
	The Committee has examined, and said things about, the constitutional relationship between Ministers and civil servants. We have examined prerogative powers and suggested reforms in that area—indeed, such reforms will be in the constitutional reform Bill. It is almost as though someone in government has discovered our back catalogue. We are delighted about that, because we labour on these issues year in, year out, thinking that no one takes much notice of what we are doing, but suddenly people discover the corpus of our work and we find that much of it is to be translated into legislation. This is an exciting time for us.
	The Committee has examined the ministerial code and has called for an independent investigator under it. We can claim to be the people who got the code changed to insist that announcements should be made in Parliament first—that is important. We have examined the role of special advisers and made recommendations. We have reformed the honours system. We have considered the system of business appointments—indeed, we have reformed the House of Lords.

Andrew Love: More!

Tony Wright: If only the rest of the world would catch up with us. The Committee has examined, and recommended reforms to, the system of public appointments. We have examined the balance of interests in the publication of memoirs and made the most important and significant contribution to that matter since Lord Radcliffe examined it a generation or so ago. We are about to produce a report on propriety and peerages in the wake of the Scotland Yard investigation into cash for peerages, and we have just embarked on an inquiry into lobbying. It is clear that the Committee has a consistent track record of examining the propriety side of government in a constructive way that is designed to improve the system and to make recommendations that can be acted upon.
	I must confess that the Committee is also probably responsible for some delay in the Government's appointing a new chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, because they knew that we were about to produce a report on ethics and standards, including a review of that Committee, and I think that they probably thought that we were going to recommend single, non-renewable terms. That might partly explain a delay in the appointment.

Gillian Merron: I thank my hon. Friend for his explanation to the House. It might help him, the Committee and the House if I were to announce that the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Christopher Kelly as Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that that follows a recommendation by his Committee that the appointment should be for a single, fixed term of five years. I am sure that he will also be glad that the appointment process was regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Tony Wright: It is good to have that announcement. My Committee did not recommend a particular nominee, but I am sure that the appointment is an excellent one. We did recommend that all jobs of this kind—ethical regulators—should have single, non-renewable terms. That removes the silliness about whether people should be renewed in such jobs.
	This whole area is necessarily sensitive, and it can be difficult for us. I remember thinking about that soon after I joined the House in 1992. I foolishly took part in a debate on Members' travel allowances. At that time, the system was that Members who had larger cars received larger allowances, and that seemed silly to me. When I joined the House, various Members at the time recommended that I buy a Ford Sierra diesel—it was called the MP's car because it had a huge engine and, as a diesel, did huge mileage. I did not buy a car, but I noted the suggestion. Even back in the early 1990s, I thought that rewarding people for driving the largest cars was not sensible, so I made the mistake of saying in the debate that I had been given that recommendation, that I did not think it made a lot of sense and that we should surely have a different kind of remuneration system. A Labour colleague, who is now a senior Member of the House, came up to me afterwards, looked me in the eye and said, "You know, you will never be forgiven for what you have just said." He may have been right—I may have never been forgiven for what I said—but at that point I learned that these are sensitive areas where one has to tread carefully.
	I also vividly remember the day when John Major, who had his back to the wall and was engulfed by sleaze allegations, announced that he was setting up the Committee on Standards in Public Life and that it would sit on a permanent basis—it was never going to go away. I remember being in the taxi queue down at the Members' entrance that night, where there was a little collection of Conservative Members, one of whom was spitting blood about the announcement and saying, "Life will never be the same again, because someone is going to poke around into our affairs and identify all the ways in which Members are working for outside interests and do something about it." That was not going to be done in the usual way of inquiries, whereby they sit for a few months and then go away. This Committee was not going to go away; it was going to keep coming back to issues time and again to ensure that we put our political system in some kind of order. Those two examples remind us that these are difficult matters.
	My proposition is that we all should share a commitment to high standards in public life—that should be a given across Parliament and across parties. We know that such a commitment is crucial in maintaining public confidence, but it is also crucial in its own right, because it is what we would expect of our political system. On the whole, our system does reflect a commitment to high standards. We do not have the kinds of corruption that are seen in some other political systems. If one were to look historically—at where we have come from—one would find that things are much better now. Comparatively—where we sit in relation to other countries—we also do rather well. In terms of the hard definition of corruption, which is the use and abuse of public office for private gain, our system does exceptionally well. Even when there are lapses, as sometimes happens, they are usually lapses for party gain, rather than for personal gain. That is not to be recommended, but such lapses are not corruption in its core sense. They happened for a period in the 1990s, but only in very small measure and at the margins.
	The problem is that the reality is, in some ways, less important than perceptions. There is a perception, fed by certain sections of the media in particular, that public life in this country is corrupt, and that it is a moral sewer or cesspit. That perception is poured out each day and it is thus unsurprising that some people think it is true. We should consider the judgment of Sir Hayden Phillips, who has been conducting the review into the funding of political parties. He said in his interim report that
	"when compared to other jurisdictions, the British political system, taken as a whole, has been remarkably free of abuse".
	That judgment was also made by the very first report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and, on the whole it is correct.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with what my hon. Friend has been saying, and I congratulate him on his speech. Does he agree that constantly making reference to the relative performance, both historically and internationally, of British politics compared with others is not enough? Does he agree that we need some kind of absolute standards, and we need to say, "We are going to aim at that"? We should not just say that we are not as bad as other people.

Tony Wright: Of course we have to have standards of our own that we believe in and want to see enforced. I was just seeking to point out the need to take a step backwards from the daily headlines. Some people want to persuade the great British public that our political system is corrupt. I do not believe that it is corrupt, and we are entitled to say that. However, that is not to say that we should not be eternally vigilant. We should not be complacent and there are issues that require attention, but on the central judgment we are entitled to say that the historical evidence and the comparative evidence suggest that we do not do too badly.
	These are matters of culture and structure, and it is important that we get both right. Our Committee went on a visit to Finland as part of its inquiries because that country usually comes at or near the top in league tables of good governance and lack of corruption. In structural terms, we would find much of the Finnish system unacceptable—for example, the way in which senior civil servants are appointed by politicians. Despite that, the Finnish system is wonderfully uncorrupt. The clue to that success was the remark by someone we met, who said that in Finland people only behave badly once. What he meant was that in the Finnish culture bad behaviour puts someone out of bounds. The society was so closed, tight and intimate that everyone knew if someone had behaved badly. In other words, the culture was sustaining the high standards. That is a reminder that structures matter but culture probably matters even more.
	There is a danger that, in our preoccupation with seeking yet more structures and rules, we may end up substituting them for the culture that really matters most. We need both, and on the whole this country has been fortunate in having elements of both, not least because we have a civil service that is an in-built check on propriety in the system. It is no wonder that people still come from around the world—I know, because I meet them—to look at the British civil service as an example of independence, neutrality and propriety. I am sure that having such a system at the heart of government acts as permanent propriety check.
	We want high standards for their own sake, not for other reasons. We say in our report that we should not have high standards just because we think that they will somehow restore trust in government—something with which we are much preoccupied now. In fact, the reverse may happen. Transparency is a wonderful thing and it is true, as is often said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant. However, it may illuminate areas that were previously unilluminated, and the more one illuminates areas, the more problems may be revealed. I suspect that no Member of Parliament particularly enjoys the annual ritual of the publication of Members' expenses, accompanied by newspaper reports about snouts in the trough without any explanation in the popular media of what we do with the money that we are paid. Does that transparency contribute to the development of trust? I doubt it. Indeed, it probably works in the other direction, although that is not to say that we should not do it. The point is that transparency of itself will not foster trust: it may work to make trust more difficult.
	Our report documents in some detail the recent creation, especially in the past few years, of a considerable apparatus of ethical audit and regulation. We—I mean we generally, not in a party sense—have published and made more robust the ministerial code; we have produced a civil service code, and one for special advisers; we have set up a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; we have established an adviser on ministerial interests; we have set up the Electoral Commission; we have had a Freedom of Information Act, with an Information Commissioner; we have a House of Lords Appointments Commission to check for propriety; we have a commissioner for public appointments; and we have reformed the honours system.
	It often goes unremarked that the previous Prime Minister removed himself completely from the honours system. He said that he would no longer add or subtract any names from the list given to him by the newly independent honours committees, but would pass them directly to the palace. That was a big moment in the evolution of such matters, but it was not widely noticed. I think that the present Prime Minister has said that he will do the same.
	I have given quite a roll call of reforms and institutions that have been introduced in the past few years, designed to strengthen the propriety of our public affairs. Both major parties have had a role in that. I pay great tribute to John Major for setting up the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1994. Yes, he did so against a background of sustained allegations of impropriety, but he did it nevertheless, and it was an important, bold and brave moment. His Government also set up the commissioner for public appointments to answer the charge of the politicisation of quango appointments.
	When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they took the process further. For example, the Major Government had said that they were not prepared to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to consider party funding. They would not include party funding in the committee's terms of reference, despite many requests. One of the first things that the Labour Government did in 1997 was to include party funding in the committee's terms of reference. That is why the committee produced its great report that led to the 2000 legislation and the commitment to transparency. It was thought at the time that that was the answer to the problem, but as I said a few moments ago, transparency is not necessarily the answer, because people do not always like what they see. Therefore, they want more to be done, which is what we are discussing now.
	There is a paradox in the history I have given. We have had a huge explosion in the ethical regulation of government, but trust in government, and perceptions of trust in government, have gone in the opposite direction. That is an interesting conjunction. One might have expected the growth in ethical regulation to produce a growth in trust because all the unregulated areas of public life were now being regulated. That has not happened, which suggests that other factors are at work.

David Winnick: I apologise for not being in my place earlier in the debate. I agree with the changes that have been made, starting in 1994 for the reasons that my hon. Friend has outlined, and extended by the present Government. However, would he agree that we took a step backwards on 18 May, when the House of Commons passed by 96 to 25 votes the wretched private Member's Bill that would have exempted Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act? Fortunately, no one in the Lords would pursue it. Had that become law, we would have disgraced ourselves, because we would have said that freedom of information should apply to all other public bodies—and it should be extended to the private sector, too, as far as I am concerned—but not to Parliament. We were saved from ourselves by the other place.

Tony Wright: I very much agree that that was not this House's finest hour. The Public Administration Committee was involved in examining the draft of the original Freedom of Information Bill, and we can claim to have made it rather more robust by the time it completed its parliamentary journey than it was when it started.
	There are a number of explanations for the paradox surrounding the enormous growth in ethical regulation in recent years and the seeming further decline in public trust in the system, but one should concern us directly. I am referring to the fact that it has become extremely attractive for one political party to attack the integrity of other parties. We have all discovered in recent times that there are enormous short-term political dividends in doing that: suggesting that our opponents are mired in sleaze plays to existing public perceptions, and brings huge political gains in the short term.
	We on this side of the House played that card heavily in the 1990s, with some justice—although, in retrospect, that was exaggerated. Some things needed remedying, but we were wrong to suggest that the Major Government and most members of the parliamentary Conservative party were sleazebags. That was not true, but we found it extremely rewarding politically to say so.
	Similarly, the Conservative party found that those attacks had been so damaging that it decided to start making equivalent charges as soon as possible after the new Labour Government came to power in 1997. As a result, the parties became involved in making mutual allegations and charges, with each saying, "You're sleazier than we are!" To which the answer always comes back, "Oh no we're not, you're much sleazier than we are!" That is how the slanging match begins, and some sections of the press love to reinforce it by telling readers every day how corrupt and sleazy we all are.
	That is why I was disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition say last week that there were questions about the Prime Minister's integrity when it came to party funding. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to attack the Prime Minister in all sorts of ways, but that was unfortunate. I do not think that there are any questions about the Prime Minister's integrity, although many questions can properly be asked about current matters. However, attacking our opponents' integrity has extremely damaging consequences for our political system and for the perception of public life.
	We all have our little lists of scandals that we think that we can throw at opponents in other parties. That is what we do: I gather that there was a splendid debate yesterday when that was all that happened. The point is, though, that such an approach is based on a deception—the lie that our system is mired in sleaze and corruption. I do not believe that, but if that is what we are saying about our opponents, no wonder people in the outside world believe it to be true, and no wonder public confidence and trust evaporate. If we say such things about each other when we know them to be fundamentally untrue, no wonder public engagement in politics vanishes. By seeking advantage in making such accusations, in some measure we are responsible for the consequences that we bring about.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech, but does he agree that the problem is that we are in an era of sound-bite politics, with too much interest shown in what the news bulletins at 12, 6 and 10 o'clock report? We need to break our slavish desire to keep in with the media at any cost, regardless of the background of what we say. Does he agree that Parliament and the media pander to each other in a relationship that means that we live in a world of our own creation?

Tony Wright: I know the hon. Gentleman. He is a distinguished member of the Public Administration Committee, and I can tell the House that he panders to nobody. He is a person of ferocious independence—

David Winnick: Is that allowed?

Tony Wright: It is one of his great charms and attractions: it is probably not greatly welcomed by those on the Conservative Front Bench, but it is hugely welcomed by someone who is trying to run a cross-party committee. He does not pander to the media; he tries to tell it like it is, and that is what we all must do. Our responsibility is not to engage in a game that we know will be taken up by sections of the media because it feeds an existing agenda or an existing set of perceptions. We must say things that we think are true, even if that is not politically convenient to our side. If we do not do that, we will deserve everything we get—and we are getting quite a lot at the moment.

Kelvin Hopkins: I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), our colleague on the Public Administration Committee. It is said that Clement Attlee looked at newspapers only for the cricket results, which suggests that he had a healthy attitude to the news media. Does my hon. Friend agree that we might help our Prime Minister now by suggesting that he should worry less about what is on the front page and perhaps pursue something more harmless, such as the cricket?

Tony Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to pay huge tributes to all the members of the Committee, but I am happy to pay tribute to him. I yield to no one in my admiration for Clement Attlee, of whom it was famously said that he would never use one word where none would do. He is the antidote to the age in which we live. Some say that he would not survive for a moment now, but I think that he would be a hero, cutting through all the spin-driven, media celebrity nonsense that drives so much of our modern public life.

Gordon Prentice: I may be anticipating a point that my hon. Friend is about to make, but does he agree that the ethical regulators who should be pronouncing on our conduct are simply not on the radar screens of people outside the House? That is the problem, and the result is that the public get their information from what happens in this Chamber. Should we not establish ethical regulators who talk loudly and are listened to?

Tony Wright: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend anticipates a point that I was going to make. Indeed, much of life on the Public Administration Committee is taken up with him doing just that, and his contributions are always extremely valuable. I was coming to precisely that point—that it is not much good to have an elaborate system of ethical regulation if it does not have a voice, or if people do not know that it exists.
	Following the report that we are discussing today, the Committee convened a seminar of all the ethical watchdogs. It was very interesting, but the consistent theme that emerged was that they all believed that they were lacking a champion. The spokesmen for the bodies involved all told us that they did not feel that anyone was there to champion all the good work being done. The fact that that is what we were told emphatically makes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and it is something to which we must turn our attention.
	At the heart of the Committee's interest, and its recommendations, is the fact that it robustly tries to seek solutions to the problems it identifies. That is its hallmark. The Committee is not complacent about standards and conduct, and tries always, in various ways, to strengthen the arrangements. In our report, we argue that the time has come to recognise explicitly that we have created a system of permanent ethical regulation. I have described an array of bodies: they are not here today and gone tomorrow; they are here to stay. As a political system, we have committed ourselves to having standing machinery to regulate conduct in public life.
	The problem is that the bodies are often set up in an ad hoc way. In response to a passing crisis, what do we do? We set up a new body, a new commissioner or a new committee. That means that the complete network of such bodies lacks a coherent institutional design. We think it is time to remedy that. There is a rather important constitutional point: if we are serious about the permanent ethical regulation of public life we have to be serious about the status of the bodies that engage in it. The situation seems fundamentally unsatisfactory to us. Indeed, our report notes:
	"It is unsatisfactory for the ethical regulators created to regulate government to be appointed by government, and funded by government."
	We have reached the point where we should express our commitment to the permanence of those bodies by putting them on a proper statutory foundation. Parliament wants to know that they are part of the permanent political landscape, so the Committee suggested the establishment of a public standards commission, which would be an umbrella organisation for the bodies that have been set up, and ensure that they all took a statutory form.
	The Government have not said that they accept our argument, but they have not rejected it either. In their response to our report, they say they will think about the proposals. Given the fact that we have had a number of successes with the Government recently and they are taking a great interest in our previous recommendations, we have some hope that when the constitutional reform Bill is drafted—that omnibus piece of legislation—a place will be found to do something of the kind that we propose. It would provide an explicit constitutional commitment to ensuring that bodies charged with the regulation of public life are permanent, independent and not simply creatures of Government.
	In fact, such bodies are not compromised in practice; they do excellent work and are robustly independent, but there is something unsatisfactory about their constitutional status and I think we can put that right. At the same time, we can give coherence to the system and perhaps answer the watchdogs' charge about the lack of a champion of their role in the overall system.

Stewart Hosie: I have read the report and was taken by the idea for a commission. In Scotland, we have various people—the Auditor General, the ombudsman, the Information Commissioner, the Children's Commissioner and others—who are all approved and appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of Parliament. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the commission model would be better than a system in which Parliament, as opposed to the Executive, makes the nominations?

Tony Wright: We looked carefully at the Scottish model—indeed, we visited Scotland—and we were attracted by aspects of it, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not entirely without difficulties. It is being reviewed even as we speak, and there are some radical recommendations for the regulatory system in Scotland. Our public standards commission would be set up by Parliament; it would be a parliamentary creation. It would report to Parliament and Parliament would be represented on it. The analogue is the Public Accounts Commission; thus a public standards commission would say that we are as serious about public standards as we are about the regulation of public money. That is the model we advocate, although I do not say that there is not more work to be done or that other models are not available. We need to take on board the essential constitutional point, and I hope that the Government, minded as they are to introduce a variety of measures in that field, will want to go down the road that we suggest.

Stewart Hosie: I should like to explore the hon. Gentleman's interesting proposal a little further. If the suggested commission were set up, would reports from the various bodies still be put before Parliament directly, or would they come via the commission? How would the mechanics of the commission work?

Tony Wright: The answer is that the commission would report to Parliament in its turn. Parliament would be involved in setting it up, and all the matters of funding and appointment that flowed from that would go along the parliamentary route. It would be sensible for the Government to be represented on the commission, as they are on the Public Accounts Commission. The reports would come to this place, very much as the Committee that I chair receives reports from the parliamentary ombudsman and the Public Accounts Committee receives reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General. There would be an organic relationship with Parliament, but there would also be independence for the bodies concerned.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling and most impressive case. His Committee clearly had some influence with the Government in the appointment of Sir Christopher Kelly. One of the Committee's recommendations was that the names proposed should be agreed by consultation among the parties. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether that particular aspect was taken up by the Government in that appointment?

Tony Wright: I think the hon. Gentleman may be in a better position to answer that question than I am. I have no idea who was consulted. There is a convention and I hope it was followed in the recent appointment, as it is in certain other appointments. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us a little more about that when she speaks.
	The House has choices. We can do what I have just recommended. The Committee was particularly concerned with Cabinet Office bodies, of which there are about half a dozen. It is not satisfactory that such bodies are ad hoc, or that they can be abolished at the whim of the Government. Whatever model we choose, it is right to put those bodies on a proper constitutional basis. That is one choice for the House and the Government.
	There is another choice, too. As politicians and party members we have to decide whether we think that engaging in the politics of sleaze, by which I mean attacking the integrity of one's opponents, is so alluring and attractive, and brings such political dividends, that we would rather settle for that as a way of handling such matters—or whether we think that the time has come to state jointly, on both sides of the House, our determination not to engage in that kind of game, but to establish a system of regulation and a culture that will ensure that our public life is conducted, and continues to be conducted, to the highest possible standards. That is a real choice for the House, and for the way we do politics. I hope that the report will be a spur for the House to make the choice that I think it ought to make.

Simon Hughes: This is a welcome debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and his Committee, which has done a particularly good job. It is an all-party Committee that consistently and regularly brings before us appropriate matters to consider. This report is an entirely good and appropriate thing to discuss. It is timely in the context of the wider debate about these matters, which has been precipitated by the recent allegations that were the core subject of yesterday's debate on party funding. These things are all part of the understanding of how the political process works.
	I want to start with the formalities of the Committee's recommendations and the Government's response, because it is important to get on the record my view and that of my colleagues on these matters. I can summarise my view by saying that I agree with all the proposals in the report. It is welcome that the Government have accepted the large bulk of the recommendations in their response, which came out on 15 November. They have accepted that
	"watchdogs should, in principle, have power to initiate their own inquiries into matters of specific or general concern."
	They have agreed that
	"ethical regulators need to be robustly and conspicuously independent, and the system of regulation needs to be proportionate and coherent."
	They have accepted the recommendation that
	"the cost of each Independent Office and the CSPL"—
	Committee on Standards in Public Life—
	"be clearly indicated in Estimates and Accounts."
	They also accepted the following recommendation:
	"The most effective safeguard against concerns that regulators' independence may be influenced by a desire for reappointment is to provide for a reasonably lengthy single non-renewable term. In our view this term should not be more than seven years (nor less than five years)."
	It is an indication of the Government's good will that the Minister intervened on the hon. Member for Cannock Chase to announce not just that the Government have agreed the appointment of the new chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but that he has been appointed for a fixed-term non-renewable period of five years. That is welcome. The Minister will expect me to say that it was not so welcome that the Government were not keen for the previous chairman to continue in office. Alistair Graham did an excellent job. We have to have a system in which the Government are not able to get angry or into a huff about such an important committee set up precisely to be a voice apart. The chairman should not find himself suddenly rubbished—I may be using slightly excessive language—by sources in Government, so that he is not able to continue in office.
	I pay tribute to Alistair Graham and his team. I appeared before them and have given evidence to them. Nothing that I have seen or know suggests that they did not do their job entirely competently, professionally and with the best interests of the country at heart. I thank him and them for the work that went on under his chairmanship. I am only pleased that the interregnum has at last come to an end and we have a new chairman, and I wish him all the best in his five-year term. This is an important appointment, an important job and an important committee.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Sir Alistair Graham. I, too, admire him and thought that he did a good job. He was precisely the kind of robust independent mind that the report recommended. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendation about a robust independent chairman reflects the change in Prime Minister? It was the previous Prime Minister and his Government who found Sir Alistair Graham rather irritating and did not like him getting under their skin. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the Government have now said that they want a robust and independent chairman? That marks a welcome change.

Simon Hughes: I accept that it was not the current Prime Minister who took the view about Alistair Graham. The current Prime Minister has indicated nothing to suggest that he is not willing to have people who are independent, robust and effective doing the job. I hope that that marks a sea change. In general terms, I welcome all the comments that the Prime Minister has made on such issues since he took office. Comments made in "The Governance of Britain" Green Paper, which was published just before the summer, and elsewhere suggest that he is determined to try to make sure not just that we, as a body politic and a set of public institutions, clean up our act where necessary, but that we are seen to do that. I do not doubt his integrity in that regard.

George Young: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away with his praise for the Prime Minister, will he recognise that the Prime Minister has not conceded to the ministerial adviser the right to initiate inquiries on his own account? The ministerial adviser has to wait for the Prime Minister to invite him to do so.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely—what I am saying is not unqualified. That is one of the specific things that has not been conceded, and one of the things in the Government's response that is wrong. There are other things that go much further that I hope the Prime Minister will do. Let me end my comments on the report's recommendations and the Government's response, and then I will pick up on one or two of the sorts of points that the right hon. Gentleman has just raised.
	The next of the Committee's recommendations that I want to mention is:
	"We think it inappropriate that any body fulfilling the remit of the CSPL...should be subsumed into a body consisting of those it may have to examine."
	The Government made it clear that they accepted that recommendation without qualification.
	Those were the good things—the positive steps forward—but there are still substantial areas where the Government have not yet come to a view. I hope that this debate will help them to come to the view that the Select Committee proposes. There are several significant areas. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned the recommendation that we need a new system to give all the ethical regulators independence from the cradle to the grave. We need to ensure that they are funded from Parliament, not Government, that they are appointed by Parliament, not Government, and that they are staffed by people appointed by the organisation itself, not civil servants—although people might be seconded from the civil service. There should be a collegiate structure for the bodies to make things clearer for the public, rather than confusing them. That is the right way in which these things should happen.
	There should be accountability from Parliament and to Parliament, irrespective of the difficulty. I heard the intervention from north of the border that reminded us that that is what happens with the Scottish Parliament. There may be some difficulties, but I am not persuaded on the basis of anything I know that they are overwhelming. That must be the right principle. The response stated:
	"The Government will give further consideration to the issues raised in these recommendations as part of its work to take forward the commitment in the Constitutional Reform Green Paper for legislation for the Civil Service."
	I hope that that proceeds relatively quickly.
	My next criticism of the Government is that we have had reform of the civil service and a civil service Act on the agenda since 1997, with repeated commitments that they were coming soon, but they still have not arrived. Unless the independent constitutional position of the civil service is upheld in statute, the confidence of the public will not be commanded in the way that it should be. Almost without exception, we have excellent civil servants, but their constitutional position needs to be safeguarded.
	Another significant criticism that comes out of the recommendations was brought up by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in his intervention. The recommendation in question is:
	"We believe that all constitutional watchdogs should, in principle, have power to initiate their own inquiries into matters of specific or general concern. They should generally consult before doing so, as a matter of good practice, but the decision as to whether an inquiry is warranted should remain theirs alone."
	Sadly, the Government have not bought that proposal yet. Their response simply says:
	"The Government will consider this recommendation further in relation to work on legislation for the Civil Service...The Ministerial Code, published in July 2007, sets out arrangements whereby the Prime Minister may refer an allegation about a breach of the Code to the independent adviser on Ministers' interests."
	If we are to have a system that is seen to be completely above party politics, there cannot be a block by the Prime Minister of the day. Where there has been such a block, it has brought discredit on the system, irrespective of the motive and the explanation for it. I am clear that the Committee's recommendations are right.
	For completeness, let me add that I noticed that the Government ducked the issue on this recommendation:
	"The normal rule should be that chairs and board members of key constitutional watchdogs should only be dismissed following a resolution of both Houses"—
	a recommendation that I again support. The Government gave a response, but did not say what they thought of the proposal. I urge them to reconsider the matter and to come to the conclusion that the Committee reached.
	My party, like all others, has regularly thought about the matters that we are discussing. We did so again this year formally through our internal processes. We considered reform of government and governance. We debated the issue at our conference in the early autumn and came up with various proposals. I want to say what they are, by way of a summary of where we are coming from, and then I will end with a couple of comments on the major issues of the day.
	As time has passed and as experience has provided us with evidence, the Liberal Democrats have become absolutely clear on one point, and have argued it: the system of governance is much less corrupt than it was, and we have a very high standard, but many people in the press have more opportunity to have a go at the public service, the Administration or the establishment, and enjoy doing so. That makes good copy, but it undermines the whole system every time they do it. None the less, we clearly have further to go if we are to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the British people. I am not saying that the press is not right to seek to expose what goes wrong; of course it is right to do that. However, I fear that it has over-succeeded, giving the impression that there is very much wrong in the governance of Britain, whereas compared to those of other countries, whether or not those countries are like ours, our standards are still very high.
	We Liberal Democrat Members absolutely believe that a written constitution would be helpful as part of a new constitutional settlement.

Douglas Carswell: Hear, hear.

Simon Hughes: I may not get as much of a "Hear, hear" for my next proposition, but we will see how we go. We believe that until we have a representative Parliament, there will not be confidence in the political process. I am not arguing for a prescriptive form; I am saying that Parliament has to be representative of views expressed locally, regionally and nationally across the UK. We have to complete reform of the House of Lords, so that we have a modern second Chamber that is elected, or nearly wholly elected, by the people on whose behalf it does its job.
	I will not go into the point at length, but as was said yesterday, we need further work on the funding of political parties, so that the many, not the few—ordinary people, who are the bulk of the electorate—are put in charge of the political process. I am talking about the low-paid and the unpaid, as opposed to the very well-paid or the very rich. In our book, that means capping the amount that a person can give over the political cycle of a Parliament, and the amount that they give in any particular year. As the Power report proposed, the electorate should be able to indicate that they wish some money to go to local parties—and not necessarily the party for which they vote. That way, if there is to be more public funding, it will be at the behest of the electors. They will be able to see where it is used, and to see that it is not lost in a system that spends a lot of money on adverts before a general election.
	I am clear that the collective talks that have partly stalled must get back on the rails, with the Conservative party on board. We should finish negotiating on the trade union issues, although I understand that they are quite tricky. We will do the public no service if we continue to allow the arms race of expenditure on campaigning, particularly nationally, to increase. We need to have that public standard in our sights. The Americans deal with the issue badly; the result is dreadful, and it is almost normal for the advertising to be negative. It is rarely positive. We need to reverse that and go in the other direction, so a cap on the total that can be spent would be valid, too.
	I want to pick up the challenge that the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee gave us, and respond positively in two ways. First—this view is not subscribed to by every member of my party; I am not speaking from a party brief—I have long thought that national advertising by political parties ought to be subject to the Advertising Standards Authority rules—that is, it ought to be decent, honest and truthful—and that there should be a penalty for any breaches, decided by an independent arbiter. I refer to national advertising only because the issue becomes too complicated at a local level. If we start on a national level, at least we will get somewhere. It seems to me that if we are telling everybody else that they have to tell the truth in what they advertise, we need to make sure that we do the same.
	Secondly, in political party campaigning, there is frustrating inconsistency between what is said nationally and what is said locally. I am up for robust campaigning; in my constituency, we took on the Labour party and beat it. We have managed to see it off, by and large. It is a much smaller player than it was 20 or 25 years ago. The same is true of the Tories—well, they have not been much of a player for the past 50 years, but we have managed to keep them in that position. It is bizarre; the Government say in Parliament, often rightly, that crime has gone down, and they show all the indicators. They say the same thing in every Labour-held seat in the country, or in every seat where the local authority is Labour. However, where there is a Conservative, Liberal Democrat or independent council, or a joint administration that is not Labour, they frighten the hell out of people by making them think that crime is going through the roof, because they think that that is what should be done to win votes. Ministers try to wind up the local press and to get them to say that that is the case. We really must have an end to that double standard.

Stewart Hosie: I wish the world was as the hon. Gentleman describes it. Perhaps he could explain why I got a Liberal leaflet through the letterbox of my London flat entitled "Menzies Campbell's crime survey", about how crime had gone up when the Liberal Democrats were not in charge of the council. Does not every party do such things, or is it only some parties?

Simon Hughes: I am sure that we all do it. I do not remember that survey, but I am not pretending that anybody is immune from taking such actions. I am making the point that when people are in government, they have a chance to do something, and they tell us how wonderful things are, but they do not appear to reflect that locally. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase made the same point: we need to make sure that the messages given out in Parliament are relayed elsewhere, and that we do not spend our time being negative, but try to be positive.
	Another issue on my agenda is the size of government and the relative amount of elected, as opposed to appointed, governance. The point came up yesterday, but as I feared, it did not get much attention, because of other matters. I have been given some figures, but I do not know whether they are completely accurate. Simon Jenkins recently said that at the turn of the previous century, in 1900, there were 1,200 elected representatives helping to run public services through councils and boards in London. Recently, the number was 2,000. On the other hand, there are 10,000 people in quangos. There has been a growth in the number of people appointed to do salaried jobs who are not elected by anybody.
	Ultimately, public confidence is best ensured by people knowing that they can kick out those in charge. That is often one of the frustrations about hospitals. A hospital trust might do terrible things, but nothing can be done about it. That is important if we are to change the culture of standards in public life.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman was hinting that he favours proportional representation or something like it to get a more representative Parliament. Is not one of the problems that people cannot make those choices? There might be a significant shift of opinion, and they could end up with the same pattern of parties forming a slightly different Government afterwards, but they cannot get rid of that Government. With our system, they can kick the Government out and put another in their place.

Simon Hughes: That is a real debate. I shall deal with the matter briefly, or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will bring me up for going down a byway of the debate.
	There are two elements to a resolution of the issue. One is that the electors must know that locally they can hold their elected representative to account. That is why I personally have understood the arguments for a Jenkins report solution, which entails single member seats and top-up, rather than entirely multi-member seats. The second element is that although the present system often produces a majority in the House, even though the Government have not won anything like a majority of the public votes, that is a smaller advantage than a system that means that what people vote for is what they get. It does not mean that they will not get a strong and stable Government, although it may mean that they will sometimes get coalition government—two parties having to work together—because that is what the electorate believe will produce a better outcome. I hope that that is an adequate answer for the time being.
	On the smaller Government agenda, the more people think that public decisions are taken by the growing number of special advisers, the more unhelpful it is. We need to cut down relatively not just the whole size of Government—the number of Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries—but the number of press officers and special advisers. The growth in their numbers is an unhealthy development.
	Lastly, we must make sure that the situation on the other side of the coin is sustained. I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for his timely intervention. One of the real threats in the past year to the progress that we had been making, as we still are, occurred when a colleague put to the House a proposal that then had tacit support, if not more, from those on the Conservative and Labour Front Benches, to take this place out of the law on freedom of information that we had not long before agreed. People cannot be expected to have faith and confidence in public life if they are not allowed the access to information about our activity that we expect of all other public bodies, with the safeguards that already exist in legislation. I hope that we never again even contemplate going backwards with respect to the freedom of information legislation that we happily passed.
	The report that led us here today is full of good proposals, and the Government have accepted most of them. We will achieve a system of good management and independent accountability in our public and political life only if they take seriously the big proposal calling for an independent system of regulators from top to bottom—regulators brought together in a way that looks coherent, and able to make their own decisions and not depend on a prime ministerial trigger. The age of patronage should be over. The age of the prime ministerial prerogative derived from the royal prerogative should be over.
	It is Parliament, not the Executive, that should have the controlling authority in these matters. I am certain that when Government are willing to let that power transfer, the public will get a service, including a public service, in which they can have even more confidence, and that our reputation in the eyes of the voters will be slightly restored, and they will think that they are getting value for money in the process.

Gordon Prentice: I shall pick up some of the points that have been made in contributions to the debate so far, before filling in some of the cracks in the picture that has been painted by my friend who chairs the Committee, the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). By that I mean the details of the system that we are proposing and how it would work.
	The Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made some astonishing statements—for example, when he suggested that political statements should be subject to some kind of Advertising Standards Authority test to ensure that they are decent, honest and truthful. That is bizarre. I wonder how the "Calamity Clegg" document would be scrutinised by such a body.
	We have an independent Statistics Board, which was introduced by the present Government because we all recognise that we can have a great deal of debate which gets us nowhere if we do not accept the basis. We should have clean statistics that both sides are prepared to accept. That is why the Government established the Statistics Board, which is independent of Government.
	My friend spoke about declining levels of trust in politics and politicians. I am not being prissy, but I hate to think what people outside made of our debate yesterday on party funding. I tried to intervene a couple of times, unsuccessfully. The image that would have been presented to people outside was appalling, but what is important for me is of no consequence for other Members in the Chamber.
	For example, I think it is important that we clear up the business of tax exiles. I think it is fundamentally wrong that people who are not paying United Kingdom taxes should sit in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is the case at present. I am not talking about speculation about Lord Ashcroft. I am talking about Lord Laidlaw, a Conservative peer who gifted over £6 million to the Conservative party. This is all on the record. The House of Commons Appointments Commission has reported on it.
	I think that that is completely unacceptable, but Conservative Members may not think so. They may get fired up about trade union affiliation to the Labour party. I may say to myself, "Well, the Labour party is a product of history. It is federal party. It grew organically from the trade unions," and I can explain that away. So we have a big clash of ideas and sometimes, like yesterday, it spins out of control and the House of Commons becomes a big growling bear pit.

Kelvin Hopkins: As so often, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the moneys collected in small amounts from trade unionists in an honest way and given as political donations is clean money, in a sense that money from Lord Ashcroft trying to buy whatever is not clean money?

Gordon Prentice: I am prepared to defend the trade union-Labour party link, but we are not talking about that today. We are talking about the report on ethics and standards.

David Davies: I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. Is it not the case that Lord Ashcroft has done nothing illegal? Much of the debate yesterday focused on illegal payments, which are in an entirely different division from the perfectly legitimate ones that have been made by Lord Ashcroft and other patriotic British citizens.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) will not be diverted down that route, as he just recognised what we are debating today. If we go into personalities, we shall veer off course badly.

Gordon Prentice: I follow your strictures as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would say only that I could not get the information that I wanted about person X using parliamentary procedures and tabling parliamentary questions. It is bizarre that I, as a Member of Parliament, am forced to use the Freedom of Information Act to try to get the information that I require about person X. We wait to see what happens. I am expecting a reply to my information request in a few weeks.
	The Committee's report was not about sleaze; we did not document sleaze or pinpoint individual instances of it. However, it is part of the background that we are having to cope with—the feeling that British politics and politicians are sleazy. As my friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, perhaps we have contributed to that.
	I am sure that we all watched the three-part documentary on Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister. While reviewing his time in office, he said—I am just paraphrasing—that, on reflection, he regretted making such a big deal about sleaze in the mid-1990s. It was not, as my friend said, that there were not things to complain about. However, in the campaign to become the Government, I remember well that not a day passed without the Labour party banging the drum about how sleazy the Conservatives were. Tony Blair regrets that now; I regret it too, I suppose, because it is contaminating our politics and bringing us all down. It does not do us or the system any good if people look at the House of Commons and the British Parliament and dismiss us as sleazy. We are not.

David Winnick: I did not agree with Tony Blair and, rarely for me, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Surely we were right to take up the exposure of the corruption that was taking place under the Tories—payment for questions, brown envelopes and the rest of it. I am a frequent critic of the media, who are criticising our side at the moment, but I believe that  The Sunday Times, for example, did a public service in exposing payment for questions. I said so at the time.

Gordon Prentice: I do not want to dwell on the issue; I have said what I wanted to say. My friend the Member for Cannock Chase talked about transparency, and I suppose that sunlight is the best disinfectant for all such matters, as he said. However, we also need ethical regulators that people listen to, and for those regulators to report to Parliament, not to the Executive. People who serve in such regulators should not be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, but by an independent, arm's length body; we have suggested the public service commission. Those people could report through that commission to Parliament. That is the way forward.
	I want to say one or two words about the inquiry that produced the report. When we started our work on the issue, it was a revelation to me to see the constellation of organisations involved in ethical regulation. There are a huge number, ranging from the really big ones, such as the National Audit Office, whose budget is £65 million, to the little minnows such as the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which costs us about £200,000 a year. There are other organisations that we did not consider but are worth mentioning, such as the Information Commission and the Electoral Commission. The parliamentary ombudsman reports to our Committee anyway. There is also the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whose job is to regulate standards in this place.
	A huge number of ethical regulators had grown up, and there was no coherence. However, we had to start somewhere. In our report, we considered the ethical regulators that are sponsored by the Cabinet Office and whose existence is not set out in legislation. We considered the role of the commissioner for public appointments, the Civil Service Commission, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which I have mentioned, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	I should like to say a little about that latter committee. Sir Alistair Graham, now retired, took his job very seriously and was always on the front pages of the newspapers, berating the Government for some transgression, misdemeanour or slip-up. He was always on "Newsnight". In his final report, he told us that
	"My greatest regret has been the apparent failure to persuade this Government to place high ethical standards at the heart of its thinking and, most importantly, behaviour."
	That is what the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life thought—it was a hugely serious charge. I think that I speak for all members of the Select Committee in saying that we were astonished that in all his years as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, he did not formally ask to see the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to discuss those matters of concern. It was bizarre. I hope and expect that if the new chairman, who has just been appointed, has problems or reservations about the ethical standards pursued by the Labour Government, he will make an appointment to see the Prime Minister to talk about it, rather than rush into public print.

David Heyes: When the chairman appeared before the Select Committee, he was operating under a 40 per cent. budget cut, which has been going on for some time. He was filling in staffing gaps by borrowing people from the Cabinet Office. I wonder to what extent my hon. Friend thinks that his reluctance to approach the Prime Minister, or raise concerns about the ability to operate, were connected with that dependence on the Cabinet Office to resource his activities.

Gordon Prentice: That brings me neatly to a point that I was going to make later. It is all very well for the Government to say—I think that they say it in their response to the Select Committee report—that the ethical regulators are independent. However, if the Government of the day can cut the budget by 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., the idea of independence becomes fanciful. That is why we propose that the ethical regulator should be set up at arm's length from the Government and that the responsibility for its funding, starting and operation should be given to the public standards commission—the arm's length body that would report to Parliament.
	I should like to spend a couple of minutes on the key recommendations of our report; my friend the Member for Cannock Chase has alluded to them already. We believe that the ethical regulators should be permanent. They should not be able to be abolished by ministerial fiat, and there should be no going back to the position of the Government being able to decide on a whim that they want to abolish a regulator. The Minister could tell the House this afternoon that the House of Lords Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission were going to be abolished. Any of those bodies, which were set up not by statute but by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers, can be abolished. That is wrong—they should be set up on a statutory basis. I welcome the fact that we are going to have a civil service Act, but what a dance of the seven veils we have had over it. In July 1998, the Government said on the record for the first time that we would get such an Act, and 10 years later we just might—I hope so. The second and third characteristics of the regulator should be neutrality and independence. It cannot be right that bodies that regulate the Government in some way are accountable to the Government, and that should change.
	On the Government's response to our report, it is a big step forward for them to accede to our recommendation that constitutional watchdogs should have single non-renewable terms—that is self-evidently the right thing to do—but many of their other responses are opaque.
	It is not clear what will end up in the constitutional renewal Bill, but it is a big opportunity for the Government to look closely at how the ethical landscape can be reshaped. The Committee has made one proposal; there may be others. The system should be put into a legislative form, and the opportunity to do that will occur when the Bill is introduced early next year.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I agree with him that sleaze should not be the currency in which Members of Parliament trade.
	Today's debate is a much more constructive and calm discussion of standards in public life than the one that we had yesterday, and for that reason it will doubtless have much less coverage. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), not only for this report but for the heroic way in which he has ventured on to a whole lot of territories from which he might have been discouraged by the Government. At the beginning of his speech, he gave an indication of what might have been when he said that as a junior Back Bencher he made an injudicious speech about the mileage allowance that could have led him to fall out of favour with the Whips. Had it not been for that incident, he might now be at the Dispatch Box taking credit for a whole range of innovative and radical constitutional reforms that he still has to advocate from the Back Benches.
	The report is unusual because it deals with abstract issues such as ethics, which are difficult to define and rather intangible, and various principles, structures and concepts. This debate therefore takes place on a somewhat different plane from many debates in the House. That does not excuse a rather thin and very belated Government response that ducks some of the major issues raised in the report.
	Let me begin by confirming what was stated by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, by the Lord Chancellor yesterday, and in the report: our standards of conduct in this country are generally high. As Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I spend a lot of time talking to visiting parliamentarians, who are amazed at the high standards that we set ourselves and the procedures that are in place to monitor them. In many countries, MPs have immunity from prosecution. We do not have that, nor should we, but on top of the criminal system we have superimposed a ministerial code and the House of Commons code, breaches of which can lead to career-ending decisions. While we should of course always strive to do better, I believe that our politics here are cleaner than almost anywhere else.
	Let me say a word or two about the Committee on Standards in Public Life. On 25 April, Sir Alistair Graham's appointment ran out. No Chairman has been reappointed for a second three-year term, so the Government knew well in advance that there would be a vacancy in April. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase heroically said that he might be responsible for the delay because the Government were hoping that his report might recommend abolition. I am not sure about that, given that his report was published on 29 April and it was only today that an appointment was announced. Indeed, the Government did not advertise the vacancy until October. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that body is being penalised for having had, in Sir Alistair Graham, an outspoken Chairman who was sometimes inconvenient for the Government.
	It is important to have a Chairman, and I welcome the appointment of Chris Kelly, who worked in the Treasury when I was there. That is a very good appointment, and I applaud it. We need a new Chairman to focus on exactly what the Committee's role should be. It is difficult, against the background of today's controversies, to argue that the mission of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has been achieved and that there is no role for it. However, when we look at some of its recent activities, it is difficult to see how it envisages its mission. We need a new Chairman and a new focus, which underlines the point made in the report about the appointment being in the hands of the Government. They have the capacity to weaken the ethical regulator simply by delaying an appointment, as has happened in this case. If Parliament had been in charge, as proposed by the Select Committee, that would not have happened.
	In passing, I would like to mention the constitutional watchdog about which I get the most complaints, the Standards Board for England. There is a passing reference to it in paragraphs 21 and 29 of the report. It is not quite clear who reviews that body—the Public Administration Committee or the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government—nor how it fits into the proposed structure, but someone needs to get a grip on it so that it is more focused and effective, and does not drive all my parish councillors into a rage.
	I want to make one point only in my contribution, which concerns the relationship between the Prime Minister and the adviser on ministerial interests. The hon. Member for Pendle spoke of the dance of the seven veils, and that is what has happened in the dialogue between the Public Administration Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the one hand, and, on the other hand, this Prime Minister and the previous one.
	By way of background, the behaviour of Ministers is just as much in the limelight as that of MPs, so enforcement of the ministerial code should be as robust as it is for the MPs' code, but it is not. Three years after the CSPL recommended it in 2003, in March 2006, Tony Blair took off one veil and appointed an independent adviser on Ministers' interests. That followed the row about loans not declared to the Electoral Commission. Another veil came off a bit later when Tony Blair, who resisted the appointment of an investigator into alleged breaches of the ministerial code, finally conceded that point. But having conceded the principle, he did not make the appointment until some time later. Having made the appointment, he never asked the adviser to investigate any breaches of the code, although there have been, to put it mildly, a number of opportunities to do so.
	I welcome the appointment of Sir Philip Mawer as the new adviser on ministerial interests—another inspired appointment—but there is still a serious and indefensible gap. His terms of reference permit him to establish the facts in certain cases concerning the ministerial code and provide private advice to the Prime Minister, but he can do so only if the Prime Minister invites him to. The design principles for a constitutional watchdog in the report make it clear that the ground rules for the ministerial code watchdog are seriously non-compliant with the report's recommendations. He does not have the freedom to initiate his own inquiries; he is not appointed by the House; he does not have secure funding arrangements beyond the control of the Executive; and he does not have a secure legal foundation. In those four respects, it is a non-compliant appointment. Crucially, he does not have the right to publish his report when he makes an investigation.
	The new Prime Minister could have taken a trick, by acceding, in the Green Paper "The Governance of Britain", to all of the recommendations in the report. But he did not. Paragraph 121 of "The Governance of Britain" makes it quite clear that the adviser can act only on the Prime Minister's request. Therefore, the regime we have for enforcing the ministerial code is much weaker than the one we have for MPs, and I see no reason why the Government should have a weaker and less effective regime than we in this House do. We have a Parliamentary Commissioner For Standards who can initiate his own inquiries if he thinks that there has been a breach; his report is always published; and he is appointed by the House for a single, non-renewable term. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, she will say that there is some room for manoeuvre, and that as the years roll by, some more veils may come off.
	I disagree with the report's suggestion that all the decisions should be subject to judicial review. Making the decisions of the ethical watchdogs subject to the courts and judicial review is a recipe for disaster. If the Select Committee has a moment, it might like to consider the output of the democracy taskforce, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) chairs. It has produced a readable document entitled "An End to Sofa Government", which has some exciting comments to make about the ministerial code and how it might be enforced.
	The authority of Government and the perception of their integrity is weakened if they continue to fail to respond positively to the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration Committee.

Kelvin Hopkins: We have heard many excellent speeches, notably that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who chairs our Committee. He generously praised not only the members of the Committee but the staff, and I entirely concur. However, he could not mention himself, so let me say that he is exceptional, even among Select Committee Chairs. Although we sometimes disagree about issues, I defer to his skill and energy and his commitment to the Committee and its work. Serving on the Committee has been the most worthwhile, interesting and significant work that I have done in my 10 years in Parliament. That probably reflects the views of many other Committee members.
	I hope that I will not upset my hon. Friend by mentioning Plato, which I do from time to time, again. Plato saw the dangers of linking money and politics 2,500 years ago. He suggested that those who governed—the guardians, the philosopher rulers—should be men of gold, entirely separate from money. They should be there merely to enjoy the pleasure of good governance. He said that the civil servants should be men—they were always men, unfortunately, not people—of silver, and that the moneyed people, the merchants, should be men of bronze, very much in third place. I believe that that is where we should keep the moneyed people—they should not govern or be in power. The dangers were therefore recognised a long time ago, and we should remind ourselves that they are not new.
	Public trust has decreased. That is partly to do with our attacks on each other and partly to do with the media, but we could do things to regain that trust. Our report contains a graph of the collapse of public trust from a high point in 1987, when 47 per cent. of the population said that they always or mostly trusted the Government, to 26 per cent. in 2005. Public trust halved in that time. It fluctuates between elections, but at each election it is lower than it was at the one before. Even in 1997, when we believed that there was a great renewal, with the Camelot of Tony Blair, and that somehow everything would be all right, it was not. Turnout, too, has been affected.
	I believe that people have become confused about and disappointed in politics, not only because some hon. Members and some members of the Government have not always behaved well with money, but through disillusionment in politics. Research by Professor John Curtice and others shows a correlation between the collapse of interest in politics, with lower turnouts, and the apparently diminishing difference between the parties. There is a perception that we all—certainly at leadership level—share a culture and that we have almost fallen into a Francis Fukuyama-like "end of politics" position because we all essentially agree. Let me say that I do not agree with the prevailing philosophy, which appears at times to be shared by the leadership of all three parties. I believe that a division of views still exists. If we who are in politics start to recognise that the people want a genuine choice, and parties that represent different philosophies and ways in which to run society, people might be more interested and begin to trust us a little more.
	Our party always had a moralistic streak. It was concerned about equality, social justice and the interests of the poor. The Conservative party was perhaps more concerned with patriotism, the Queen, preserving the old order and so on, but the parties were at least identifiable. We have confused everybody by almost eliminating those differences. We should re-establish those differences, so that people have a genuine democratic choice. Democracy without choice is no democracy at all.
	It is pleasing that the Government of the new Prime Minister have broadly commended many of our report's recommendations. However, the Government have not accepted the recommendations detailed in quite a long section on pages 2 and 3 of the response, saying:
	"The Government will give further consideration to the issues".
	One of those issues is who will appoint the ethical regulator or regulators. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and others have talked about Parliament doing that through a commission. I entirely agree that that is how the appointment should be made. However, although one does not want to cast aspersions on one's colleagues, we are all influenced to an extent by our Whips. They can have a word in someone's ear and say, "Well, actually this is the name we want, because they're basically on our side," or, "The Prime Minister rather wants this particular person." We need a body that is slightly separate from the Whips and not prone to their influence.
	A conspiracy involving the Whips from the two main parties is even a possibility. The Opposition might not want too energetic, strong, robust or independent-minded a regulator, just in case they ever get into power and suffer the irritation of having to face them, so there is always the possibility of a conspiracy of the Whips on both sides, as well as the risk from Government Whips. What our report recommends is sound.
	I do not want to say very much more, because most of what I had wished to say has been said by others. I wholeheartedly support the report. I would have liked it perhaps to go a little further in driving a wedge between money and politics, but that might have to wait for another day. Such reports are necessarily consensual and I am happy with the consensus that we achieved; but perhaps in time we will go further in driving that wedge between mammon and politics, to the benefit of our politics and in order to rebuild higher levels of trust among our electors.

Douglas Carswell: I read the report with great interest, and it is a timely report. The public feel growing concern about the standards in public life, and they have every right to be concerned. They increasingly regard politicians as remote and sleazy, and Members of Parliament as belonging to an aloof political class.
	To some extent the public are right to feel disillusioned. Some of the loss of trust in politics and in the political process is merited. I would not want to go overboard, however, despite recent examples of rather squalid and tawdry deals. Most people whom I have come across in politics in my short career here are decent and well-meaning people; indeed, most of those whom one comes across in public life at almost any level in Britain are well-meaning, honest people trying to do the decent thing.
	People's real concerns are not so much about what politicians may or may not do with this private donation or that source of private funding; rather, they are about what the political class does with taxpayers' money—with public money, not private money. The real scandal is not caused by hidden donors paying for this or that leadership, and does not involve private money so much, but rather public money. The concern felt by the public is caused when big corporate interests meet big government. When we examine standards in public life and consider what structures we can put in place to regulate them, I very much hope that we will consider how public money is spent.
	I want to talk about three areas where I have concerns. First, I hope that a future watchdog will examine the awarding of defence contracts and the influence of the defence lobby in Westminster and Whitehall. Some £32 billion a year is spent on defence. I believe that it is increasingly possible to prove that it is spent largely in the interests of defence contractors and not of our armed forces. I am not some sort of left-wing, hippy peacenik; I am not against the arms trade. But I am against a few big corporate interests controlling the public policy agenda and shaping it in their interests.
	I do not allege overt corruption—I am sure that the Agusta scandal that occurred in Belgium a few years ago is not being repeated by Agusta-Finmeccanica in the UK today. I merely note the following. Contractors spend large sums of money buying influence in Westminster and Whitehall. There is not always full disclosure as to how that money is spent. BAE Systems has admitted to me that it engages a number of consultants with passes that give them access to Parliament. It will not say precisely who they are.
	The armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme of which I am part, and which has the aim of educating Members of the House about the armed forces, is largely funded by a few privileged defence contractors. Again, they refuse to disclose who is paying what. At the same time, the armed forces parliamentary scheme has very definite views on defence procurement, or rather on MPs who make a song and dance about certain procurement issues, as I found out.
	The defence contractors put a lot of money into various forums and lobby groups, and it is only fair that we have proper disclosure. Contractors have a vested commercial interest in the defence industrial strategy and a protectionist policy that precludes a broad-based supply base. The taxpayer and the armed forces pay a very high price for that protectionist policy and lack of full disclosure. I would like a future watchdog to have an inquiry into how defence contracts are made and the interests and influence of lobbyists in this institution and Whitehall.
	Secondly, I would like a new watchdog to be able to investigate what one might call certain elements of the British establishment's indulgence of tyrants who happen to be very rich. Why do we treat Saudi Arabia as our key ally in the region? When we impose sanctions on Burma or Zimbabwe, why do we parade the Saudi elite down the Mall? Why has our judicial process been traduced by halting an inquiry into whether BAE Systems bribed Saudi princelings? Has Saudi Arabia bought a large section of our foreign policy establishment? Could it be that there are those in public life, perhaps at the Foreign Office, hoping one day to take their places on the boards of Saudi-funded companies? Again, I would like an inquiry into standards in public life to look at why the Serious Fraud Office investigation was halted and the inquiry into BAE Systems abandoned, and to examine the role of officials and retired officials.
	Thirdly—this is not a partisan point; it is a critique of the Executive, not of the party that happens to be in office—I want us to look carefully at how public money is spent in marginal constituencies. In this country, we like to think that we do not do pork-barrel politics; we like to be able to sneer at those Americans who do it differently; we like to think that we are not some sort of third-world, third-rate grubby country where public resources are allocated on the basis of political calculation. Really? Local government funding formulas seem to me to favour certain parts of the country with certain political complexions rather than others. In some parts of the country, a largesse with public money seems to have created a class of people dependent on high state funding.
	I do not know whether this is in order, but in relation to the Abrahams affair and the question of what Wendy Alexander knew at what time, it seems to me that the real outrage is not what a few individuals do with private money, but what is being done with our public money. Standards in public life do not mean investigating only how private money is spent. We need to examine not merely how private money relates to the political class, but how public money and its expenditure relates to that class.
	The lazy assumption that the UK is somehow uniquely incorruptible is, I think, dangerous. We have not yet reached European levels of corruption in public life, but I think we are not far behind. I would like to see us focus more in future on improper behaviour between big corporations and big Government. I hope that any new commissioner appointed to investigate will look at those areas, because when big Government meets big corporate interests, the taxpayer almost always loses out.
	I begin to draw my comments to a close by responding to a point raised by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Politicians on both sides seem to be aware of voters' growing contempt for the political process. We recognise that voter turnout is falling and that the "none of the above" party seems to be doing ever better. Many of us will recognise on the doorsteps that voters increasingly despise politicians, but I think that the political establishment needs to stop blaming the voters for holding its politicians in contempt. We also need to stop blaming the press, which I believe reflects rather than shapes what its readers think. We need to recognise that it is we, not the voters, who are at fault.
	It is not so much that MPs are corrupt with private money; our failure is that we are no good at holding the Executive to account for what they do with public money. We are monumentally useless at holding the quango state to account. If MPs were better at holding the Executive to account for how they spend public money, there would be no need for a public standards commission, and we MPs would be less despised.
	How, then, can we ensure that MPs have the appetite to hold the Executive to account? I shall touch on a point raised by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Part of the problem is that there are too many "safe seats", as they are termed by political academics. Very many people in the House stand no realistic chance of ever losing their seat in a general election. That is what makes them more accountable and answerable to what the Whips and the party system tell them to think and say than to the voter. I have been changing my mind during my two and a half years as an MP, and I have come to recognise that we need a more competitive system that will ensure that people elected to this House are held to account more by the voters and less by the Whips. That might best be done by some form of open primary selection, and possibly some form of multi-member competitive constituency system.
	I finish by saying that elected MPs currently have little appetite to hold the Executive to account. That is because they are inclined to act as cheerleaders either for the existing Executive or for some future one. That means more talk of regulation by ethical watchdogs, but if we rely purely on such ethical regulators and watchdogs to hold the political system to account, we will replace conscience with compliance. The best way of regulating public life is to have a House of Commons that is accountable to the electorate, and a political system in which the legislature holds the Executive to account.

Greg Clark: The debate has been a good one, rather better tempered than yesterday's exchanges. That is appropriate, because the truth is that the vast majority of people who come into public life—whether they be in Parliament, local government, the civil service or other public bodies—do so for the best of motives, and never lose sight of that during their careers. Indeed, every day in this House, we start proceedings with a prayer for ourselves and others in positions of authority within Government. The prayer says:
	"May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind".
	Irrespective of whether people are religious, that is a pretty good code of conduct for Members. I am certain that all who speak those words mean them, whether or not they have any religious faith. I do not believe that they have their fingers crossed behind their backs. The very first line of the Committee's marvellous report makes the point very clearly. It states:
	"A rule based system should never substitute for a culture of high standards, rooted in the traditions of public life and shared by all those who participate in it."
	Whatever reforms of procedures and institutions we may discuss, we must never lose sight of the importance of that culture.
	I do not believe—many hon. Members have said this—that in general standards are not high, but that is clearly not the public's perception. As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, trust in Government, and indeed in politicians more specifically, has declined. In the first line of her brilliant 2002 Reith lecture, Professor Onora O'Neill, now a peer, said:
	"Confucius told his disciple...that three things are needed for government: weapons, food and trust. If a ruler can't hold on to all three, he should give up the weapons first and the food next. Trust should be guarded to the end".
	That is very important in our civic life. If we are losing the trust of the people who send us here we need to do something about it, because it is a major problem.
	We should also note that this loss of trust has taken place during a period in which—as the appendix to the report makes clear—14 ethical regulators have been established, half of them during the last five years. The Committee has done us a service by focusing on this issue, 12 years after John Major established the Committee on Standards in Public Life. While we are discussing the origins of that Committee, I think it appropriate to record our condolences to the family of Lord Nolan, its first chairman, who died earlier this year.
	The Committee has made suggestions for reform, many of which we consider sensible. We hope that the Minister may be able to associate herself with them more clearly than the Prime Minister has so far, but I think we should now pause to consider, in overview, whether our present system is working. I was struck by evidence given to the Committee by Professor Dawn Oliver of University College London, who said in one of her contributions:
	"The existence or creation of watchdogs signals the collapse of a trust based system...If trust and trustworthiness have broken down watchdogs may...generate even more mistrust and possibly unethical behaviour and legalism"
	by encouraging people to
	"focus on the letter rather than the spirit of the rules".
	We have a paradox: the more regulated we are, the more the perception of trustworthiness may be affected, and the more standards of behaviour may decline. It is almost as if we are being infantilised, and becoming like children responding to the admonitions of a parent. It is important for us to recognise that if all the decisions are in the hands of an ethical regulator, that parent-child relationship will become standard. I think that we should conduct ourselves, in this place and beyond, as adults. I say that lest we be tempted to establish new regulators in the years ahead. Regulators are nearly always established in response to a particular concern that has arisen: that is true of most of the regulators we have had in the past. The Committee's report may make us pause to consider that in future.
	As Lady O'Neill said,
	"Elaborate measures to ensure that people keep agreement and do not betray trust must, in the end, be backed by trust...Guarantees are useless unless they lead to a trusted source, and a regress of guarantees is no better for being longer unless it ends in a trusted source."
	I agree with my hon. Friends that ultimately, that trusted source must be the people themselves. It must lead us back to democracy. These things cannot be contracted out; trust must come from the electorate. Too much of the direction in public life has moved away from that ultimate accountability to the electorate, and I am not convinced that the public trust in unelected representatives—unelected appointees—is any more than their faith in elected guardians of the public interest. That is why the Committee breaks important ground in recommending a system for ethical regulators to report in a collegiate way to Parliament. Even today, that would give greater independence than we currently have from Ministers. That would be an important step forward.
	In respect of the special ethical regulators that we have, we should take heed of the Committee's view that sometimes it is hard, or even impossible, to exercise a distinction between the ethical and the administrative. It behoves us all to be temperate in our consideration of reports from those regulators, because they find it difficult to distinguish between the two, and we damage trust in politics if we are seen to react too hysterically to reports before they have been properly investigated.
	The direction of travel is clear. We need to have more parliamentary accountability. That is why I am a little critical of some of the Government's initial reactions to the clear recommendations of the report. It is good that we have established the principle that fixed-term appointments are to be encouraged, but the Government can still delay appointments. We have seen that in the case of today's appointment, which has been months in coming. It is also the case that that appointment did not conform exactly to the principles that have been recommended.
	In an intervention earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) whether the appointment was the subject of consultation between parties, as his Committee rightly recommended. My understanding is that that was not the case—that my party was not consulted. This is an important appointment; we are dealing with people's confidence in standards in public life, and we have waited so long for the appointment to take place. It is disappointing that in making this apparently confidence-building appointment, the recommendation of the Select Committee was not followed. I therefore fear that the Committee that the hon. Gentleman chairs was not quite as influential as he might have hoped.
	To move on to other areas, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) rightly described the Government's response to some of the recommendations as opaque. The Committee recommended that:
	"Funding and operational challenge should be provided by a body independent of government"
	and that:
	"Appointment should be by Resolution of the House, and the names proposed should be agreed by consultation among the parties."
	All the Government have said on that is that they will give further consideration to the issues raised. The Committee's report also recommended that all constitutional watchdogs should have the power to initiate their own inquiries. All we have heard from the Government is that they will make a commitment to consider the recommendation. Therefore, if we are to move to a new system of greater transparency and confidence, we have further to go.
	If we are to be genuinely accountable to Parliament in the way suggested, the Government must start taking Parliament a bit more seriously in general terms. For example, it is important when we ask questions in Parliament and hold the Executive to account that we have the information made available to us, but my recent experience in questioning the Minister's own Department—which is responsible for promulgating to civil servants across Whitehall the rules which say that parliamentary questions should be answered promptly and named day questions answered on the named day—is that it gives holding answers that prevent us from exercising that degree of scrutiny. It is important that we live up to the standards that we set ourselves.
	As for how to move forward, I do not want to rehearse the well-made arguments of yesterday—I am sure I would be brought to order if I were to try—but it is incumbent on us all to be clear about some of the abuses, inadvertent or otherwise, that take place. When trade unions are reporting more donors of the political levy than there are members of the union, I do not know whether that is by design or accident, but we should have the courage to look into that and correct it. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who led from the Front Bench yesterday, wants us to do, and I know he would welcome a more positive Government contribution on that subject.
	There is also the question of the advantages of incumbency, such as the communications allowance. If we seek to restrict spending by candidates while there are great financial advantages to incumbency, that corrodes confidence in public life.
	It is important that the way that appointees, be they ministerial or public ones, conduct themselves is in keeping with the standards that we expect. I know that exchanges have taken place on this earlier today, but it was disappointing that one of the Government's more recent appointments, Mr. Paul Myners, who has been appointed to a civil service post as head of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, made an ill-advised personal and political attack on some of my hon. Friends last week. On "Question Time", he referred to the
	"arrogant, superior young toffs who lead the Conservative party".
	That is not the kind of remark that we expect from a public servant. I know that the reputation of Mr. Myners in business is strong, but if someone is working for the public benefit in a position of trust, they ought not to make partisan political statements such as that on the record.
	Some excellent contributions have been made in this debate. I have referred to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, who chairs the Committee. He made an excellent speech that forcefully made the case for his recommendations. They speak for themselves, and I hope that the Minister will give them a response.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was a little premature in his hymn of praise to the Prime Minister, although it was tempered later in response to an intervention. We must wait a little to see whether we will have the enthusiasm that the hon. Gentleman expects. He mentioned the contribution of Sir Simon Jenkins to the report. It is a significant one, because when Sir Simon gave evidence to the Committee he made a powerful point about the importance of localism. He made the point that if we were sitting in New York debating confidence in public officials and public representatives, people would think first about the mayor of New York and local council members there, then about the governor of the state of New York, and ultimately about the President.
	In this country, when people think about those in public life, they automatically go straight to the Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs. We seem to have lost that confidence in, and indeed the prominence of, people in civic positions between central Government and people's lives. Having lost that is a fault, because people tend to have confidence in people whom they know, people whom they can see and—as was made clear earlier—people whom they can kick out. People do not feel that they can directly kick out the Prime Minister—they feel that they can do so only very indirectly—but those in their own constituencies and their own council areas should be more accountable to local people. That gap in the middle of our democracy corrodes our standards.
	The hon. Member for Pendle made a slightly curious speech. He endorsed several of the points that I am making about the Government's need to respond more proactively. He also expressed some regret for some of his party's remarks during the 1990s and the contaminating of politics by dwelling too much on matters of sleaze, but he then launched into an unsubstantiated attack on Lord Ashcroft. I was not sure that such an approach had great consistency. The hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution in talking about the dance of the seven veils that the Government have been doing since July 1998, when they first promised a civil service Act. We await the publication of the legislation, and we hope that it has benefited from the scrutiny that the Public Administration Committee has given its own draft Bill and, subsequently, the various Government consultations on it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is perhaps the only Member of this House to have been praised in the evidence that the Committee took. The eminent commentator Peter Riddell said in his evidence that the system of parliamentary regulation was much better than it had ever been,
	"partly thanks to two individuals, Sir George Young and Sir Philip Mawer".
	The whole House knows what contribution my right hon. Friend has made to promoting standards in public life. The point that he made about the Standards Board is well founded. There can be no better example of the sort of parent-child relationship, in which the establishment of the board has encouraged bad behaviour in some councils, with tit-for-tat reporting of the most trivial alleged offences, which wastes public money and corrodes the confidence that people have in those institutions. We should take a much more sensible approach.
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Prime Minister's document, "The Governance of Britain". That was a great opportunity to go further in proposing arrangements to enforce the ministerial code and ensure that the arrangements that we have for Ministers are as robust as those for MPs, but that opportunity was not taken. There was also the possibility of pre-empting some of the recommendations that we are making in this debate, but sadly, the rhetoric and hoop-la surrounding the great unveiling of that document have not been matched by its content.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North paid an appropriately warm tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, and made a fascinating speech that drew attention to the need to hover above some of the micro-issues and ensure that we have the right systems set up that will serve us well for the future. The contribution that he has made, and continues to make, in the Committee, will do that too.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) made his usual robust speech. He is a thoughtful and independent-minded Member, and I know that no one is more passionate than he is about restoring the importance of local democracy in our national life. His contribution today was in keeping with that.
	We have had a good debate. We have covered a lot of ground. The report is excellent and challenging, but the Government's response so far has been lacking. It has been opaque, although we now have an opportunity to hear from the Minister. I hope that she will take the opportunity—

Kelvin Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman committing his party to supporting all the recommendations in the report, especially those on appointments?

Greg Clark: As I said, there is much in the report with which we agree, but I cannot at this stage commit to its every jot and tittle. It enjoys our warm endorsement and it has been fed into our policy review. Our proposals will be published shortly, but we are concerned at the moment to hear from the Minister about whether the measures will be put before us in the Bill that we have been promised in this Session, so that we may change the law.

Gillian Merron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) on securing this debate. It has given the House a welcome opportunity to debate important issues with the benefit of what has been described as the bright light, or sunlight, shone by the Public Administration Committee. The debate was all the better for that.
	I welcome the open and mostly constructive spirit in which the debate has taken place. I wish to place on record and emphasise that, as the Government said in our response to the Committee, we are giving serious and continued consideration to all the issues raised by the Committee and in this debate. Our commitment is to a continual improvement, and I think that that commitment is shared by right hon. and hon. Members.
	I cannot emphasise enough that the Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of conduct for those in public life. We welcome the Committee's review of the regulation of that conduct, with its particular focus on the bodies that have been set up by the Government for this purpose. The Government also welcome the fact that the witnesses to the inquiry were convinced that
	"public life in the early twenty-first century was cleaner than it had been before."
	I am pleased that that observation was approved by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). He has form in that regard, as he has always supported higher standards in public life.
	The Government share the Committee's views in a number of areas. First, we agree that the primary purpose of the system of ethical regulation is to ensure that standards of public conduct remain high. Many hon. Members have suggested as much today, and we accept that ethical regulation is a component of good government. Secondly, however, we agree that
	"a rule based system should never substitute for a culture of high standards, rooted in the traditions of public life and shared by all those who participate in it."
	Thirdly, we believe that regulators have an important role in ensuring that people in public life are properly scrutinised and that they make an important and valuable contribution to upholding the highest standards. On those points, the Government are very much at one with the Committee, and much of what has been said today bears that out.
	Before I go on to deal with specific points raised in the debate, I should like to add my tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and by the Public Administration Committee, which he has chaired so forensically and enthusiastically for a number of years now. As we have heard, he might have been standing at this Dispatch Box had he not made his views so clear in the speeches that he has made. However, I am grateful that he has given me the opportunity to stand here myself; I am for ever in his debt. The Public Administration Committee has produced a large number of recommendations of great quality over many years which have helped to shape the landscape of ethical regulation in this country. I repeat that I believe that standards in public are all the better as a result.
	Before I deal with specific matters raised in the debate, I want to put the improvements that the Government have made and the bodies referred to in the report in some sort of context. Most significant in that regard have been the roles played by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by Parliament. On 3 July, the Prime Minister made it clear in an announcement to the House that he hoped to agree a new constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament and the British people. In the Green Paper entitled "The Governance of Britain", he set out two objectives for that settlement—namely, that the Government should be more accountable for the power that they hold, and that the rights and responsibilities of the citizen would be upheld and enhanced. Indeed, the Prime Minister has gone further and called on the House to work with the Government in a spirit that takes us
	"beyond parties and beyond partisanship".—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 815.]
	Today's debate forms part of that discussion, in which I hope that all hon. Members will participate in that spirit.
	I shall begin with the Committee on Standards in Public Life, about which the report made clear recommendations. As I announced earlier, the Prime Minister has today appointed Sir Christopher Kelly to be the committee's chairman. He will take up the post on 1 January and will continue the committee's important work to ensure high standards across public life. I can assure the House that Sir Christopher was recruited through fair and open competition and in accordance with the rules of the committee for public appointments.
	I should also like to take this opportunity to thank Rita Donaghy, a long-standing member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. She has admirably filled the role of interim chair, and I am sure that the whole House would want to pay tribute to her.

Greg Clark: Will the Minister explain why, in respect of such a sensitive appointment, it was not felt appropriate to consult the leaders of the main Opposition parties?

Gillian Merron: There may be some confusion about the Government's commitment, so perhaps I can gently point out that we never made a commitment to consult Opposition parties about that appointment. However, we have made a commitment to consult the main Opposition party leaders on the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It may reassure the hon. Gentleman and other Members who made the same point to learn that Sir Christopher has indicated that he is more than willing to go before the Public Administration Committee at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that it will welcome that offer.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Government have not yet committed themselves to the Select Committee's recommendation about appointments. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to that recommendation and confirm that future appointments will not be made in the same way as the most recent one?

Gillian Merron: At the beginning of my remarks I said that we were considering all the points made by the Committee. We are keen to work with it to improve things where we can. Given the responses I have heard in the House today, I hope people will feel that the appointment was made in the right manner, in a spirit of openness. Furthermore, I have indicated the appointee's willingness to make himself available to the Committee, which I am sure will be extremely welcome.

Greg Clark: May I ask the Minister about the manner in which the appointment was announced? We discovered it at Prime Minister's questions in response to a question. Was not it felt appropriate to make a written statement today that this very important appointment was to be made?

Gillian Merron: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ministerial code, which indicates that Ministers should come to Parliament, as we have done, at the first opportunity. Indeed, a written ministerial statement has been made and the Prime Minister indicated that an announcement would be made later today, so the Government have been true to the proper spirit and the requirements placed upon us.

Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gillian Merron: I was about to refer to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, so perhaps I could do that first. He asked why the term of the previous chair was not renewed. Sir Alistair himself acknowledged that none of his predecessors had been appointed for a second term and, given that precedent, he had no expectation of reappointment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the fact that the previous occupant of the position had never met the Prime Minister. I am happy to tell the House, in the spirit in which I believe we should act, that the Prime Minister has scheduled a meeting tomorrow with the new chair and the outgoing interim chair, Rita Donaghy. I am sure that Members will welcome that commitment.
	My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (David Heyes) referred to funding for the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I should like to make it clear that the committee's budget has not been cut by 40 per cent., as was suggested. In fact, in evidence to the PAC in April 2006, Sir Alistair Graham said that the Committee had not faced any cuts, but had received the budget it sought. I have the figures if any Members want reassurance about the situation.
	As I am the Minister with responsibility for civil service legislation, I was glad to hear the comments made in the debate today. The Public Administration Committee made a large number of recommendations in its report and they are directly relevant to the constitutional reform agenda that is being taken forward as part of "The Governance of Britain" Green Paper proposals. The Committee has welcomed the Government's commitment to bring forward legislation on the civil service. This will be the first legislation of its kind from any Government.
	I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the dedication and skills of those who work in the civil service. During my working day, I meet many civil servants, both in Whitehall and across the country, and I am constantly impressed by their hard work and commitment to public service. I thank them for the work that they do for the people whom we serve.

Simon Hughes: May I push the Minister a little further? Since 1998, it has been announced that a civil service Bill is on its way. We have had a draft Bill, but the Bill was not included in the Government's draft legislative programme or the Queen's Speech. What is the timetable for the Bill appearing before Parliament and what is the Government's expectation of when it will be on the statute book and in force?

Gillian Merron: All good things are worth waiting for. It is important to note that we are the first Government to give this commitment. It will be within this parliamentary Session. The draft provisions to which the hon. Gentleman referred will enshrine in legislation the core principles and values that govern the civil service: impartiality, objectivity, integrity and honesty. I am sure that the House will understand that, at this stage, I cannot comment on specific issues—nor would it be appropriate to do so—but we are taking full account of the recommendations made by the Public Administration Committee in its report, and I am grateful to the Committee.
	It is worth noting the action that we have already taken, independently of legislation. In June last year, we issued a new civil service code. It included the right for the civil service commissioners to take a complaint or concern directly from a civil servant about an issue under the code. Furthermore, the selection panels for the most senior civil service appointments are now chaired by the commissioner. The Government make an annual report to Parliament on special adviser numbers, costs and responsibilities. A new ministerial code was published in July and a revised code of conduct for special advisers was published in November.
	As I said earlier, we are consulting the main Opposition party leaders on the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the Government's improvements in that regard. In addition, following a recommendation from the Public Administration Committee, and in line with arrangements for the new chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the appointments of the First Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments have been converted, with the Queen's agreement, to single fixed terms of five years.
	Turning to public bodies and public appointments, the post of Commissioner for Public Appointments was created in 1995 to regulate, monitor and report on ministerial appointments to public bodies. The commissioner publishes a code of practice to ensure that the appointments process is open and transparent, and that appointments are made on merit. We have extended the code beyond the point at which it started. It previously applied only to NHS bodies and executive non-departmental public bodies. The Government have included advisory non-departmental public bodies and public corporations within the commissioner's jurisdiction. That means—this is important in the context of our earlier debate—that about 10,000 appointments to more than 1,000 public bodies are now regulated by the commissioner.
	Those public bodies provide vital services, from health to education to the protection of the environment, and including everything in between. They are created when that is the most efficient and effective way of delivering a service. The majority of those who serve are unpaid. There has been discussion about the number of public bodies. However, the number has fallen. In 1997, there were 861 public bodies sponsored by the Government, excluding those sponsored by the then Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices. By 2006, that number had fallen to 835.
	There has been reference to the ministerial code. The Government agreed to a strengthening of the rules relating to former Ministers and the business appointments process. I assure the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that the new ministerial code makes it clear that on leaving office Ministers must seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any appointments or employment that they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. The code makes it clear that Ministers will be expected to abide by the advice of the committee. Previously, the arrangements were on a voluntary basis. On the new ministerial code, a new independent adviser on Ministers' interests has been appointed, who can be invited to investigate allegations of wrongdoing. That represents a strengthening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made a comment about regulators and the need to put them on a statutory footing. It is important to say that the Government are committed to preserving the existence and independence of the various ethical regulators. The Public Administration Committee said that there needs to be further debate on the precise way in which ethical oversight is best arranged. We look forward to working with the Committee and the regulators to find out what further improvements are needed. Each of the ethical regulators is already accountable to Parliament. Their annual reports are published and they regularly give evidence to the Public Administration Committee. Again, if further measures are necessary, we will gladly continue to work with the Committee and the regulators on that.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred to caps on donations. Just yesterday the Secretary of State for Justice announced in the House that a White Paper would be published as soon as possible, and the Government will introduce legislation after that. That is an issue for all parties, as was brought out in the debate. I hope that we can work together to restore greater confidence in politics and politicians, which is what we all want. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey also suggested that special adviser numbers be cut. Perhaps it would help the House if I made it clear that in the ministerial code, there are clear rules on the number of special advisers. Ours was the first Government to publish an annual report on the number and cost of special advisers. Perhaps we could give a bit of calm context to the numbers: the Prime Minister's statement, published on 22 November, showed that a total of 68 special advisers were in post. That is out of a total of more than 500,000 permanent civil servants.

Greg Clark: Will the Minister say how many special advisers were in post in 1997?

Gillian Merron: I believe that the number of special advisers is already a matter of record; the figure is in the Library.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey also suggested that the Government cut the number of press officers. Again, to give some context, there are 563 registered press officers in central Whitehall Departments. I believe, as many of us do, that it is essential that the Government inform the public effectively. I make no apology for campaigns on issues such as not drinking and driving, quitting smoking and handling national challenges such as foot and mouth—that is, on how to keep people safe in their daily lives.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle expressed concern that regulators could perhaps be abolished at the drop of a hat. I simply do not accept that suggestion. I hope that the manner in which I have responded to the debate and our wish to see regulators play a strong role will give him some reassurance.

Gordon Prentice: The political honours scrutiny committee was abolished at the drop of a hat.

Gillian Merron: We are committed to the existence, independence and effectiveness of the regulators, because they help us to carry out our job. We should see them in that light.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire suggested that the Ministers code was less robust than the MPs' code. I referred earlier to the improvements that we have made. I wish to add a reassurance that Sir Philip Mawer will publish an annual report covering his work and role. Parliament will want to look at that closely.
	The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) spoke of holding the quango state to account. Perhaps I can offer him a reassurance that public bodies and central Government public bodies are ultimately accountable to Ministers. Chief executives are appointed as accounting officers. They can be and often are summoned to give evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. Those public bodies are required to have published complaints procedures in place. I have already indicated the downward trend in the number of those bodies. On lobbying, I look forward to the Public Administration Committee's inquiry into the lobbying industry. We believe that the right approach is for the Government to ensure propriety in their actions and for the lobbying industry to regulate its own conduct.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) spoke about party funding. It is worth the House recalling that it was this Government who introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which took important steps forward by setting up the Electoral Commission and the appointments committee and setting out requirements in respect of donations. The Government must complete that work and we will not hesitate to make any necessary changes.
	In conclusion, the Government have never shied away from taking the action necessary to maintain and enhance the standards that the British people have a right to expect from us and which we are proud to deliver. The Public Administration Committee has made a huge contribution over the years to reinforcing and enhancing the principles and practice that guide the way in which holders of public office discharge their duties. The Government look forward to continuing to work with the Committee and the various regulators and to maintaining our commitment in this area.
	 Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates) .
	Department for Work and Pensions

Benefits Simplification

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Session  2 006-07, HC 463-I  on Benefits Simplification , and the Government's response, Third Special Report, Session 2006-07, HC 1054;  Eighth Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee, Session  2006-07, HC 718, on Local Government Finance: Council Tax Benefit, and the  Government's response, First Special Report, Session 2006-07, HC 1037. ]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £627,101,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 29,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £1,147,101,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.— [Diana R. Johnson.]

Terry Rooney: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform to the debate. I was expecting the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), but she is far better looking.
	Some would say that it was ironic that the Select Committee published a report on benefits simplification that ran to 116 pages and contained no end of jargon, numerous unintelligible tables and various other obstructions to general understanding, but I would not say that.
	Why did we undertake the inquiry? Last year the Committee conducted a short inquiry into the efficiency savings programme in the Department for Work and Pensions, and it became apparent to us that part of the problem for the staff was the enormous complexity of the benefits system, which was compounded by the job reductions that were taking place and the IT problems being experienced. That is why we decided to undertake an inquiry into potential benefits simplification.
	It is worth pointing out that the Department administers about 40 different benefits. In addition, there are benefits such as child benefit and child tax credit, which are dealt with by HM Revenue and Customs. Many of the benefits administered in the Department are passports to other benefits such as Warm Front grants, eye treatment, dental treatment and so on. In total, the Department's budget is about £120 billion; excluding state pensions, it is about £70 billion. There are 17 million claimants, and about 25 million people are affected. Obviously, the Department has a major influence and impact on people's lives.
	Furthermore, for about 17 years the Department's accounts have not been signed off. That used to be because of customer error and customer fraud. However, the Department has been effective in dealing with those problems, and the problem now is increasingly official error. The total loss due to fraud and official error is estimated at about £2.6 billion. Although, taken against the overall budget, that is fairly tiny, it is still an exceedingly significant amount. No doubt the level of official error in particular has come about largely because of the complexity of the benefits system that staff have to administer. I do not think that anybody deliberately makes errors, but they are the almost inevitable consequence of where we are.
	Throughout the 1980s I was a welfare rights adviser. In those days, we had two bibles. One was the Child Poverty Action Group handbook, which in those days ran to about 250 pages, but now has 1,600 pages. The other was known as the Yellow Book—a single volume containing all the Acts of Parliament and the regulations. That is now the Blue Book, which runs to 32 volumes; the "Decision Makers' Guide", the instructions on how to implement the legislation, runs to 14 volumes. That is meant to help, although I do not know whether there are examinations on those 14 volumes.
	How did we get to where we are today? To a large extent, social security started with Beveridge; there were things previously, but they were minuscule. Essentially, Beveridge established a system of benefits, based on national insurance contributions, around the principle that men worked and women stayed at home. At that time, it appears that nobody was sick or disabled. For those who fell outside national insurance contributions, there was a fairly brutal system called national assistance.
	By the '60s, society at large had decided that national assistance was not a nice thing and we got supplementary benefit, which gave a series of entitlements but had a lot of discretion within it. By the mid-80s, that discretion was deemed not to be good. It was thought that it was being abused. It was impossible to budget for, so we got the Social Security Act 1986, which introduced income support. That had the benefit of formalising things—everybody knew where they stood—but it created an awful lot of losers. However, that new system came in.
	By the mid-90s, it was decided that we needed a new regime for claimants who were seeking work, so we got the jobseeker's allowance. The old invalidity benefit became incapacity benefit. Those are the main income replacement benefits, but along the way, for various reasons, we got other benefits such as disability living allowance and carer's allowance. Every time a benefit is brought in, a new layer of legislation and complexity is added, but seldom is anything taken away.
	There is also the problem of legacy. It has always been a principle of the social security system that nobody should be a cash loser at the point of change. Some would say that that is equitable and is the right thing to do—but we are now running five separate systems for those incapable of work due to illness or disability. We have legacy claimants from the various different systems going back a long way. That has an administrative cost, because it is cheaper to administer a current benefit than one that is 30 years old. It also puts a serious strain on departmental staff who were there when it happened and know about the rules relative to the benefit that is still in operation. I make no judgment in this debate about efficiency savings, but it is fair to say that when 30,000 staff were taken out of the organisation, an awful lot of them were at the older end of the spectrum and had that knowledge. That creates the further risk of official error.
	Complexity in the benefits system comes from a variety of sources. We are guilty, because this House is one of the worst places for introducing it. Somebody stands up, cites a case and says that something must be done, a campaign starts, and before we know it there is more complexity. That person goes home happy and 2,000 civil servants scratch their heads and say, "Why on earth did we do that?" Public pressure sometimes arises out of topical incidents. Those of us of more mature years remember the 1960s documentary "Cathy Come Home". People relate that to housing and homelessness, but it also led to wholesale changes in the benefits system, particularly the introduction of rent allowances. Change sometimes happens because it is decided that a budget is running out of control and savings are needed.
	As I said, there are about 40 different benefits, which were all created at different levels. It is not the case now, but for many years in the '80s and '90s it was touch and go each year whether the rate of the state retirement pension was above or below the level of income support for people over 60. In some years they qualified for income support, or supplementary benefit before that, while in other years they did not—often by only 5p. That was because of the different formulae that applied.
	Straightforward policy objectives also have an effect. The one that I would highlight, because it is in the news a lot, is child poverty. The Government's declared intention to deal with that has led to all sorts of policy initiatives. Things can go spectacularly wrong. I have a couple of examples, although hon. Members will probably have nightmares if I mention them. The first is that of the Child Support Agency. In the late '80s and early '90s, it became apparent, particularly to the public, that far too many fathers were abandoning their financial responsibilities and, in effect, leaving them to the taxpayer, because in those days about 1.5 million lone parents were not working and on benefits. The so-called liable relatives division of the old Department of Social Security, which was responsible for collecting maintenance, was always the lowest priority for staffing, and whenever there were staff shortages the people there were moved somewhere else. Frankly, it was useless at collecting maintenance. Court orders gave maintenance only for a fixed amount—there was no facility for the payment to be uprated. If the person failed to pay, it was up to the potential beneficiary to take follow-up action to get the money. The system had collapsed.
	There was all-party support in this House for the original legislation, the Child Support Act 1991; I do not think that a single person spoke or voted against it. Closer examination, with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, shows that the formula calculation for the basic maintenance payment ran to three pages—a bit different from E=MC(2). One of the big steps forward, which started with the Jobseekers Act 1995, has meant that Committees reviewing social security legislation now have draft regulations before them. In those days we never did, and it was pot luck whether the intention translated into the regulations. It was a big step forward when Committees actually saw the draft regulations, and that process has improved even more.
	Many of us who were in the House at the time remember the absolute chaos when the disability living allowance was introduced by a wonderful Minister, Nicholas Scott. He was a super Minister for the disabled, and was widely praised, but the administrative chaos that took place because the scheme had not been geared up properly was horrendous. People were waiting for up to two years for their initial claim to be paid. The intention was good, but the practice and operation was different.

Phyllis Starkey: One example of a policy objective not being carried out relates to a benefit that my hon. Friend has not mentioned yet: council tax benefit. It was introduced to try to make council tax fairer. Does my hon. Friend agree with the argument made by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which I chair, that it should not be considered as a benefit, but as a rebate? It should be decoupled from the thresholds and rules relating to other benefits so that it serves better its original purpose of making council tax fairer.

Terry Rooney: I would hate to venture on to the territory of trying to make council tax fair, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a rebate because no cash ever enters an individual's pocket. It is a credit against their council tax liability. I would have no qualms at all about changing its name to council tax rebate because that is what it is. There is no cash payment.
	For reasons that are beyond me, and I defy anyone to explain it, in 1983, the system of housing support moved away from the Department of Health and Social Security into local authorities, and was called housing benefit. Again, for about two years there was absolute chaos. No end of people were evicted, and tens of thousands more were threatened with eviction, because of the inability of local authorities to gear up for that big change. At the time, my authority of Bradford—the fourth biggest authority in the country; I will just stick that in—had a small department dealing with the old rent allowance. It was informed by the Department of Social Security that it would need an extra six staff to deal with the new legislation. At its peak, it had an extra 130 staff, and it is now down to about 100. It never staffed up for that change because it was not told it would need to, and by the time it had the right number of staff, incredible backlogs had occurred.

Joan Humble: With regard to housing benefit, my hon. Friend will also be aware of the chaos caused by the introduction of the verification framework. It was introduced for perfectly good reasons: to reduce fraud and to ensure that benefit was given in the right way. Does he agree that that, too, caused huge chaos for local authorities, for individuals who should have been receiving support for their rent and for landlords, who often did not get their rent paid?

Terry Rooney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not my place to defend the verification process, but I shall make a case for its defence. The process threw up an incredible amount of fraud in the housing benefit system. One of my bugbears about social security legislation is that an awful lot of it is aimed at the 0.2 per cent. who wish to defraud the system, which inconveniences the 99.8 per cent. who find themselves in difficult circumstances, want a bit of help while they sort themselves out and then move on. An awful lot of regulation could simply be deleted from the statute book. Let us not forget that such complexity impacts on customers, staff and advisers such as citizens advice bureaux and whatnot. I shall just make a little observation at this point—anyone who claims to be an expert in social security legislation is either a liar, or leads a very sad life.

Rob Marris: Are you an expert?

Terry Rooney: I am not an expert, but I do lead a sad life.
	That cannot be good or right. Social Security Advisory Committee people tear their hair out at proposals that are always well intentioned but frequently work to the detriment of everybody.
	The Department has been tremendously successful at driving down client fraud and error. However, most client fraud begins as innocent omission and failure to declare something. Suddenly, clients realise two years down the track, because they have talked to somebody else, "Oh, I should have told them that, but nobody's noticed, so I'll carry on."
	There are seven different earnings disregards, depending on the benefit someone receives—for example, whether someone is a lone parent or part of a couple and so on. If people are told that they can earn £20 without telling anybody, they think that that is correct. The figure is, indeed, £20 for lone parents. Strangely, it is £20 for income support, but £25 for housing benefit. The same individual could receive two different benefits, with two different levels of disregard. It is therefore easy to understand how omission starts.
	However, at some point, omission translates into serious client error/fraud, which gets extremely expensive over time for the Department. It always generates overpayment, most of which, in the big cases, the Department never recovers. I have experienced cases of overpayment of £40,000 and £50,000. The individual's financial circumstances mean that it is repaid at a rate of £5 a week. When that person dies about 30 years later, £20,000 is still owed. It is in nobody's interest to reach that stage.
	Changes of circumstance make an impact on individuals, and there is no single point of contact where people can give information and everything is done. The four major changes of circumstances are: change of address; acquiring a partner; losing a partner; getting a job, and having a child. A highly successful joint pilot between the Department, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and others has taken place in Wallsend—I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform will comment on it later—whereby an individual tells one person about a change of circumstances and all the relevant people are notified. In this day and age, we should be able to do that for everybody. I understand that the pilot is being rolled out in other places, but the sooner it happens nationally, the better.
	It is ironic that one of the difficulties is data protection legislation. With the best intentions, successive Governments have passed legislation that prevents one Department from sharing data with another. Much of that difficulty has been removed, but some of it remains. The general public think that that is stupid. To them, the Government are not a series of separate Departments but a single entity—the Government are the Government.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the distinguished Chairman of our Select Committee, for giving way. He is making an excellent speech and his last point strikes at the heart of many issues in the Select Committee's report—for example, the unnecessary duplication of basic information, such as name, address and other contact details. I concur with his remarks that the system needs to be simplified to minimise error and inadvertent fraud.

Terry Rooney: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend from the Select Committee. He makes a useful and telling contribution.
	I believe that the Department's primary function is to receive claimants who are in distressed circumstances, minimise the period for which those circumstances apply and get those people back into work in the shortest possible time. Sadly, the complexity of the benefits system discourages some people from the latter. For example, there is a genuine problem with lone parents in London. Of especial concern are individuals in the private rented sector, with its high housing costs, and what happens when they move into work.
	We have heard innumerable examples of people who prefer a low income, with the security of knowing that it is there every week, to earning a higher income in the world of work, but with the insecurity of not knowing when a new claim will be set up, because, it has to be said, lots of authorities in London are pretty poor at administering housing benefit. In many cases people accept a much lower level of income with the security of knowing that it is there. I take no offence at a lone parent with two or three young children who says, "Blow that, I'll stick where I am—at least I know what I've got. I can budget for that and I can manage it." That is an unintended consequence of the complexities in the system.
	Another wonderful progressive change by the Government was to abolish the horrendous therapeutic earnings and introduce permitted working for those with disabilities.  [ Interruption. ] There are a load of notes coming in from the officials—I have not said that much. The Government introduced permitted working, which was a major step forward, particularly in terms of the dignity of people with disabilities. Unfortunately, there are four sets of rules for permitted working under four different types of circumstance. If we introduced one rule and allowed everyone on incapacity benefit the highest level of earnings, of about £89 a week, the notional loss to the Exchequer would be minimal, but the ease and comfort for disabled people would be enormous. As a side point, there might also be some political kudos to be gained. Again—I have already mentioned the various earnings disregards—good intentions have been somewhat tarnished by the complexity.
	We are victims of the age that we live in, and among all this, Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions, sadly, cannot operate without IT systems—well, they could if there were about 1 million civil servants instead of 80,000 or 90,000, but I do not think that anybody wants to go to those lengths. It is fair to say that the Department has been let down by contractors—I would not put it any more strongly than that.

Rob Marris: I would.

Terry Rooney: Indeed. Over the years, failure or inadequacy of performance in IT systems has caused horrendous heartache and serious disruption in the Department's ability to function. That has been a major issue in the Child Support Agency over the past few years. For many years, what was known as NIRS2—the national insurance recording system—could not tell people who were due to retire how much they were entitled to. A number of projects have also been abandoned. Interestingly, at least the contracting basis for the CSA system was changed, with the Department contracting to rent a system that worked. When the system did not work, the Department did not pay anything and since it never worked the Department never paid anything. Previously when Departments bought systems, they had to fork out for people to come and put them right when they did not work. Departments have got a bit smarter with how they deal with IT systems. The IT systems have never before worked as well as they do now—but that is not a difficult achievement, given the history.
	In this day and age, some 60 per cent. of the population have performed a transaction online. That figure is increasing all the time, and it is totally erroneous to say that claimants are incapable of using the internet. They might have a financial inability to acquire it, but then we need to consider other access points. Telecommunications, the internet and online transactions are the future, and it is nonsense to say otherwise. However, that brings additional hazards and consequences, which I hope the Minister will pick up, although I will leave it at that—I am conscious of time and others want to speak.
	The Department has had a number of successes. They have all been relatively small-scale, but the creation of the benefit simplification unit nevertheless indicates a change of focus. Its staff is still too small, but at least the issue is back on the agenda. I understand that announcements about significant further work on simplification will be made in the new year, which is welcome. Much of the work done by the Pension Service on pension credit has been great. A single point of contact to deal with council tax benefit, housing benefit and other matters has been established. Some of the deregulation in relation to occupational pension schemes, which was proposed by the benefit simplification unit, is good. The local housing allowance is a major simplification. Sadly—returning to the legacy issue—people move on to the new system only when their circumstances change. Two systems will therefore be running for who knows how long, but there we are.
	It has escaped public notice that from next April people will not be required to produce their final wage slip when they leave work and move on to benefit. Trying to track down the final salary payment is a horrendous task for those who deal with claimants. Benefit used to be held up until that payment appeared. Whatever the cause, such as reluctant employers, it created enormous difficulty out of all proportion. I am glad that the Government have abandoned that requirement.
	The Select Committee had a lot of discussion about whether complexity is inevitable in a world in which individuals have different circumstances and lives. It is fair to say that there was some disagreement. I think that it is inevitable. There is an eternal tension between universal and means-tested, and contributory and non-contributory benefits, and in finding the right balance. Norway has a relatively uniform system, but my goodness what a cost of living it has—it is extortionate. There are always pluses and minuses.
	We put forward two additional recommendations for consideration. One is the concept mentioned by Fraud—sorry, Freud; a Freudian slip—of a single working-age benefit. There is an air of utopia about that—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) will probably say a lot about it. But there is potential, and the embryo of an idea, which might give us the simplicity that we want. There are all sorts of problems with introducing it—there will be arguments about winners and losers and so on—but it is an idea.
	As to the other recommendation for consideration, we reflected on the success—first in analysis, then in presentation of solutions and then in public acceptance—of the Turner commission on pensions, and suggested that perhaps it was time for a welfare commission. Beveridge assessed what sort of society we would have post-war, and what sort of social security system we wanted for that society. There has been no real consideration of the fundamentals since 1945—it is 60-odd years since Beveridge published his report. There are serious grounds for going back to basic principles, and saying, "This is the society, labour market and mobility—or lack of it—that we have. What sort of benefit system do we need that allows that society to function but that also removes all barriers and disincentives to people to work?"
	We are firmly of the view—I evangelise about this—that this country has enough people with sufficient credibility, academic rigour and intelligence to staff a commission such as the Turner commission. They could take two, three or four years—I am not bothered—but they would present for public debate and to Parliament a possible model for where we will be in 10, 15 or 20 years' time.
	I repeat: this Department affects about 25 million people and has a £120 billion budget, which represents the largest slice of Government expenditure. We are duty bound to try to simplify it as much as possible.

Eric Pickles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of an important written statement made today on the reorganisation of local government within England. Further to that statement, have you had any indication from the Prime Minister whether he intends to come to the Dispatch Box to answer the serious allegation that he summoned the chairman of the boundary committee to him this week and instructed him to find a solution for Norfolk and Suffolk together? That goes against the express wish of his own Secretary of State, so we would like to know whether the Prime Minister is running the country to further the best interests of its people or on the basis of satisfying his mates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have no knowledge at all that any such statement to the House has already been organised, but the Government Front Benchers will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are now clearly on the record.

Danny Alexander: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee first on an extremely useful, clear and well thought through report on an absolutely critical issue facing the benefit system; and secondly, on the characteristically strong and clear way in which he explained the Committee's recommendations, providing the historical context to show how the benefits system has become so complicated. He closed with a reference to Beveridge, which is a very good place to start. If we read the original Beveridge report, we find that his objectives for the welfare system included a degree of simplicity—not complexity—in order that the principle of incentive be clearly embodied within the benefit system. That is one important issue addressed in the report's extremely wide-ranging recommendations.
	The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) asked whether complexity was an inevitable consequence of having a welfare and benefits system in the modern age. He was right to highlight the wide range of different circumstances in which people live, which the Minister will no doubt want to talk about. None the less, it is certainly possible to have a benefits system that is a great deal less complex than the current one, which has been characterised by some as the most complex welfare and benefits system in the developed world. Our system includes 51 different benefits with 250 different rates and numerous additional components—disregards, rules and so on. It is fiendishly complicated. The Chairman of the Select Committee seems to have reached an understanding of the system; it takes the amount of time and effort that he has put in to understand the full range of its complexity.
	It comes through very clearly in the report that it is nigh-on impossible for a claimant even to attempt to understand the complexity of the particular part of the system with which he is trying to interact. I shall come on to that in more detail later, but one of the key points that emerged from the report was the need to put the interests of the claimant at the centre of an understanding of how the system can be simplified and reformed.

Rob Marris: I quite understand the need to put the claimant at the centre, but it is clear from the hon. Gentleman's own argument that people live their lives in quite different ways. I was a member of the Select Committee in the last Parliament and I well remember the not very successful Doug Smith, chief executive of the Child Support Agency at the time, saying words to the effect that one of the reasons why the system was not working very well in the CSA was that it had not realised what complex lives people led. Fortunately he resigned, but that presents a real difficulty. Because of the complexity of people's lives, if we try to make a system claimant-centred, it will either be complex or very expensive.

Danny Alexander: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall be identifying some areas, many of which the Committee's report also identifies, in which the system can be simplified in a way that is in the interests of the claimant and does not necessarily involve the enormous costs that the hon. Gentleman seems to fear.
	One of the points raised in the report concerns the equation between means-testing and complexity. It is an important point, to which we shall doubtless return during the debate. We discussed it earlier today in the context of the statement on pensions. Even given the Government's planned pension reforms, the Pensions Policy Institute forecasts that in 2050, 45 per cent. of pensioners will still be receiving a certain amount of means-tested benefit in retirement. That is an area in which the issue of means-testing and complexity is critically important.
	The report also gives examples of circumstances in which people must undergo multiple different assessments in order to secure multiple different benefits. That too could be rationalised. It was interesting to hear the sensible proposals of the Minister for Pensions Reform today. He spoke of linking pension credit applications with applications for other benefits, including housing benefit, by means of a single telephone call. If such improvements can be achieved in that relatively small but important section of the claimant population, surely they can be achieved throughout the benefits system.
	Complexity obviously gives rise to issues related to data sharing and the way in which data are transferred, highlighted recently by the loss of data and concern about data security. During the passage of the Bill that became the Welfare Reform Act 2007, considerable new information-sharing powers were agreed between the DWP and local authorities with a view to both providing better anti-fraud measures—which is important—and allowing, potentially, a more joined-up system for processing claims. All such practices carry risks related to data sharing, and the Minister may wish to say something to reassure claimants about the Department's data-sharing practices. A raft of questions on the subject that I tabled a couple of weeks ago still have not been answered. I look forward to receiving, in due course, a bit more information about the way in which those systems currently work.
	The report also refers to complexity at the point of receipt of benefits, and to the electronic benefit payment system that is used in California. I believe the Committee visited California.

Terry Rooney: Briefly.

Danny Alexander: Such trips are beyond the purview of the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which I serve, but it seems to have been a very useful visit. In their response to the report, the Government describe the Post Office card account as having been modelled on the Californian system. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what stage has been reached in the process of awarding a new contract for the Post Office card account, which has been going on for some time.
	The degree of complexity in the system clearly has the potential to cause worrying and damaging consequences, which are highlighted in the report. The first involves benefit take-up. I believe that there is considerable evidence that it is partly because of that complexity, the confusion that arises from it, and a sense that the system is highly intrusive, that many older people who are entitled to pension credit do not claim their entitlement. Last week the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children warned that, as well as worries about information sharing and the security of data, a sense of being at the margins—particularly among the most vulnerable claimants—might affect decisions on whether to claim benefits.
	The hon. Member for Bradford, North dealt effectively with issues of fraud and error. There is clearly a relationship between complexity and fraud, and the detection of fraud, but it is important to bear in mind that what is described as fraud often starts as a straightforward misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the system, which can build up over time.
	It is interesting to note that although the fraud figures have been falling, which is welcome, the figures for official error have not; in fact, they have been going up. One wonders to what degree that is a consequence of either the complexity of the system or the fact that there are significant ongoing staff reductions and changes within the administration of benefits which then cause official errors to increase. If we have a system where fraud has been cracked down on but official errors are increasing, there is an element of taking with one hand and giving away with the other.
	The Government must ensure that there are proper systems in place, particularly as in the end it is claimants who suffer from official errors, especially when they result in benefits not being paid or benefit payments being delayed. I have certainly noticed an increase in such cases in my constituency; they might involve the time taken to pay benefits, paperwork getting lost, or the centralisation of benefit claims in large call centres causing problems in terms not only of getting through, but of information being recorded accurately and processed in a timely way. All those problems are, at least in part, consequences of the complexity of the system, which needs to be ironed out.
	The report also highlights the important area of work incentives. Particularly in relation to high marginal deduction rates, work incentives can suffer as a result of a highly complex benefit system, especially one that is so hard to understand. It is now almost always the case that someone would be better off in work—we might talk about that further—but many people do not understand that they would be better off in work because the system is so fiendishly complicated. Reference has also been made to the impact that this entire process has on staff—on staff morale and staff understanding of the system. That is an important point, and the Minister must address it.
	The report addresses in particular the question of the better-off calculation. It is almost impossible for any ordinary mortal to calculate for themselves, starting from whatever their circumstances happen to be, whether they would be better off in work. The Government have recently proposed that everyone who goes into work will be at least £25 better off—a better-off guarantee, so to speak. However, I was worried to note that that guarantee does not, as I understand it, take into account the impact on passported benefits, such as free school meals and prescription charges. Although the Government might well be able to make that guarantee in terms of the basics of benefits and tax credits, account must also be taken of the wider impact that that extra income will have in other areas of people's lives. Travel costs must also be taken into account. I noticed that the Government statement referred to the concept of reasonable travel costs, but there might be quite a difference between what are considered reasonable travel costs by a constituent of mine in the highlands and by someone using the bus system in a big city—or by people in other rural parts of the country. A great deal more needs to be done in understanding what truly is a reasonable travel cost. That must be done, if that better-off issue is to be properly addressed.
	My next point is that a complex benefits system leaves many claimants confused and having difficulty in understanding how the amount of money they receive is calculated—how those calculations are arrived at, and why they might or might not be entitled to different benefits at different times. That is made worse by the often lengthy form-filling processes people have to go through. Recently, a constituent came to my office asking for help in filling in the housing benefit application form, which was a lengthy document with an even lengthier set of explanatory notes. I think I was just about able to help, but it is an extremely complex and difficult process. Such processes can often lead to frustration, as information that is recorded on a form might be entered—perhaps inaccurately—into a computer system, and there is the "computer says no" phenomenon, in which people get a letter saying, "Your benefit application has been refused" and they then need to go through a lengthy process to put things right.
	The Select Committee report also addressed the important question of costs, particularly in terms of telephone systems. It rightly identified the use of 0845 and 0870 numbers for helplines and in call centres. They are proliferating in the benefits system now that face-to-face contact appears to be a thing of the past in the Department for Work and Pensions. Those costs are enormous. Although the assumption is often made that people have a landline, so the rates are relatively cheap, the social fund's evidence is that up to half of the calls it receives are made from a mobile phone. Depending on the network operator, when someone calls an 0845 number, or even an 0800 one, from a mobile phone it can cost up to 40p a minute. They might end up being on the phone for anything from 10 to 50 minutes, depending on the helpline that they are calling and the reason for doing so. That soon adds up to a substantial sum that people are being asked to pay simply to get what most would say is their entitlement under the welfare system, which is supposed to be available to all.

Rob Marris: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that paragraph 15 of the Government's response, on the 0845 numbers, is rather a weak response and that it is based on a misunderstanding? I understand that calls to 0845 numbers cost four or five times the cost of a regular landline call, so a local call on the regular landline might be 1p a minute whereas an 0845 call might be 5p a minute. We all know how long people may have to wait on the phone, and these interviews can be lengthy. Is he also aware that last December Lord Warner, who was then a Minister in the Department of Health, put out a circular specifically discouraging general practitioners' surgeries from using 0845 numbers? These numbers are another proliferation of back-door charging, but they are particularly distressing in respect of the Department for Work and Pensions, which deals with some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in our society.

Danny Alexander: I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that these calls are more expensive even from a landline, and they can be massively expensive from a mobile phone. The Government often respond by saying that they do not obtain any financial benefit from these numbers, but that is not the point, because our constituents pay that money. It does not matter who the money is going to. We are talking about people who might be seeking to claim benefits amounting to £40 or £50 a week, so if they spend 50 minutes on their mobile phone calling a helpline that charges 40p a minute, I believe that that adds up to £20—the hon. Gentleman is better at maths than I am—and a significant chunk of the money that they hope to claim.
	The Government need to do two things. They must make 0800 numbers standard throughout from landlines, and they must work with mobile phone operators to get the costs as close to nil as makes no difference.

Rob Marris: Or 03 numbers.

Danny Alexander: Or 03 numbers, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is a consequence of a situation that I described earlier that these systems appear to be set up in the interests of the system and not in the interests of the claimant. It is crucial in the development and simplification of the benefits system that the claimant's interests come first. This could be a quick win for the Minister, because the sort of instruction that was issued to GPs could equally be issued across the DWP, and I am sure that new phone systems could be put in place so that people calling the social fund helpline before Christmas do not have to pay huge sums. I hope that she will explain what she will do to make that happen. This situation is a consequence of what my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) and I have described as the faceless state. The DWP is at the forefront of an increasingly faceless and bureaucratic system, where the system's interests are put far ahead of the claimant's.
	I have been asked what can be done to promote the simplification of the benefits system. The first and crucial point, which the Committee makes in its report, is the need for drive and vision at a high level behind this process. The report is striking, and the language that it uses is strong for a Select Committee report. I did not mean to scare the hon. Member for Bradford, North, who is its Chair, but it came across powerfully to me that the Committee's analysis was that there is not a great deal of drive or vision at a high level behind the benefits simplification process.
	Even in the hon. Gentleman's attempt at the close of his remarks to be kind to the Government in this area, he damned them with faint praise. He mentioned one or two small-scale improvements, but the report makes it clear that that drive at the high level does not exist, that the benefit simplification unit is simply not able, on its own, to deliver and develop this agenda, and that without the high-level commitment this agenda will not progress as it should. That is particularly the case in respect of another point on which I strongly echo the Committee; there is a need for a joined-up approach between the DWP and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and between the benefits system and the tax credits system. The tax credits system is part of the benefits system and should be seen as such, and there needs to be a much more joined-up approach.
	We have talked about the idea that the DWP should be responsible for tax credits as well. The programmes are trying to do the same thing. The Chairman frowns; perhaps he thinks that the DWP is not up to it. It certainly seems clear from its performance that HMRC is not up to it, which prompts the question of who would be up to it under this Government. That question may be outwith the scope of this debate.
	One area that could provide that joined-upness is the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am deeply disappointed that the Treasury is still unwilling to give it the same remit on tax credits as it has on the benefits system.
	The "tell us once" initiative and the shared application process is another area where simplification could proceed. Today's announcement for pensioners was an example of what can—and should more often—be done.
	Another area that causes people to suffer is benefit assessments. A constituent of mine was being assessed for incapacity benefit, industrial injuries disablement benefit and disability living allowance. Those three medical assessments took place in the same centre with the same doctor, each separated by a week. Over a three-week period, that person had to go back and forwards three times. I went to the centre to ask for an explanation, and I was told that the problem was that the benefits were handled in different areas. The systems did not talk to each other and they could approach the claimant only once they received the message that he needed an assessment. The idea that someone should have three separate assessments for three separate benefits in the same place three weeks in a row is absurd. In relation to disability benefits at least, the Government should consider developing a core assessment, so that it can be shared between the different systems to try to make the process easier.
	The Committee rightly refers to the idea of a single working-age benefit and sets out a model for that in annex A of the report. The Institute for Public Policy Research has also made recommendations along those lines and my party adopted it as a policy objective at our recent conference. David Freud's important report refers to it as a key aspiration. The Chairman of the Committee is right to highlight the complexity of making a change on that scale and the associated difficulties, but the idea has important advantages in principle and in practice. There would be a clearer difference between a benefit designed to replace lost income and those benefits that are there to meet the extra costs that people may have, for example, through disability. Eligibility for those extra cost benefits would not depend on whether someone was out of work, as incapacity benefit does, or employment and support allowance will.

Anne Begg: On pensions policy, I know that the Liberals want a universal citizen's pension. Would they also like to see the end of the contributory principle when it comes to welfare payments?

Danny Alexander: The contributory principle is important, and it was addressed in the report, which makes it clear that there are real difficulties, not least in terms of people's understanding of the benefits system. We have not proposed the abolition of the contributory principle across the board, but the Committee's report makes interesting reading for anyone who might want to further that agenda. The contributory principle certainly has implications for the complexity of the system and thus for people's understanding of it, so the hon. Lady makes an interesting and important point.
	The single working-age benefit would also have advantages in terms of incentives to work. As identified in the report, drive, vision and leadership are needed to set that high-level objective and make progress towards it over time, in the way in which the Government of New Zealand have done. I had the chance to discuss that with some of the officials in the department working on the issue in that country, and they recognised the complexity of the transition, including grandfathering existing claimants and so on. Nevertheless, it would be a clear objective. I think that is the right direction for our benefits system.

Rob Marris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the next logical step might be to have a guaranteed minimum annual income, depending on an individual's circumstances?

Danny Alexander: That is not my party's policy, but I noted with interest what the Committee proposed in its report. The suggestion in Government's response had many of the characteristics of a minimum income, and it is certainly worth further debate. The objective is the right one, and the main questions are to do with implementation.
	The simplification of benefits is crucial for the system's future, especially given that millions of people rely on the money that they claim to stay out of poverty. I therefore hope that the Minister will take careful note of what the report says, and of the points made in this debate. The simplification agenda needs a good kick from someone at ministerial level to replace the lack of vision and drive that the Committee has rightly—and sadly—identified.

Joan Humble: It is a great pleasure for me, as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, to contribute to this important debate, and to follow on from what our Chair said earlier. He outlined in detail the Committee's recommendations, and set the historical context for the simplification of benefits payments. The system has been growing in complexity over 30 years, not just the past two or three, and it is about time that we looked at the wider picture.
	I shall begin by running through some of the problems identified by the Committee. We noted that people frequently encounter problems with computer-generated letters and with long waiting times at the end of a telephone, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) reported. In addition, difficulties are caused by contact centre staff who follow their scripts in a rigid way that means that they do not respond flexibly to those who ring them up. Problems also arise out of the complex interaction between benefits and tax credits, and people find it hard to acquire and understand the "better-off" calculations. In addition, the legacy benefits system to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) referred is both costly and complex.
	I shall return to some of those matters in more detail later, but first I refer the House to the third recommendation in the Committee's report. It is important, because we want the Government to take a wider view of benefits simplification and of the system that they want to have in place, rather than adopting a piecemeal approach that merely involves dealing with individual benefits. We therefore ask whether all existing benefits are necessary, or whether some might be merged. We also urge the Government to examine the way in which the interaction between benefits and qualifying arrangements can differ, and to look at the overall purpose of the benefits system. That last idea sounds easy, but the world of work and society has changed since the system was first introduced. Our approach offers a new perspective, and it is one that I hope the Minister will take into consideration.
	Why do we need to simplify the existing benefits system? One answer is that we need to make life easier for both claimants and staff. For instance, how many times have we, as Members of Parliament, had constituents come to us to complain about computer-generated letters? Such people may have received three letters from the same department—very often the Child Support Agency, it must be said—on one day, and another three on another day, but can they always work out what money they should get and when? No, they cannot.
	Computers can do wonderful things, but someone has to give them instructions. Sadly, letters that can be generated at the push of a button do not always serve the interests of human beings, and that is a problem that I hope that the Minister will look at.
	The point about long telephone delays has already been raised. Not only are such delays expensive for many clients, they are hugely frustrating. By the time the client speaks to the person at the end of the phone they are angry and may raise their voice, so the member of staff has to calm down a frustrated and angry client before they can talk to the client about their benefit entitlement. Furthermore, if the person at the end of the phone rigidly follows their script, they cannot deal with the complexity of people's lives, especially people who are entitled to a variety of benefits. A script can be of help to staff in contact centres, but they need to be trained to go beyond the script sometimes, so that they do not have to refer the client to many other people for an answer.
	How can clients be expected to understand the complex interaction between benefits and tax credits? That complexity leads to non-take-up. As we are all aware, many people do not take up benefits because they do not understand how they work. Complexity leads to both claimant error and official error. The Chairman of the Committee outlined some of the tremendously complex aspects of the benefits system: for example, there are four sets of rules about backdated benefits.
	The appeals system shows that the Government's intention to get things right at first contact with a client does not always work. All too often, the client appeals and their case is upheld. We need to make sure that the right decisions are made at the first contact.
	Our report referred to the "better-off" calculations. If we are to convince people to come off benefits and go into work we need to get those calculations right, because people need to know whether they will genuinely be better off in work. It is important that we look at passported benefits such as free school meals and prescriptions. If a lone parent with three or four children gets a job, she will have to take into account the fact that in future she will be paying for school meals, which add up to a substantial amount each week, and she will have to pay for prescriptions for herself. If we do not give her full and comprehensive advice she will not be able to make up her mind whether she would be better off, so the calculations must be an honest assessment of all the financial implications of moving off benefit and into work.
	Some complexity in the system may be not only necessary but desirable. I agree with the Chairman of the Committee that we cannot make the system so simple that there are only one or two benefits, with no add-ons. If we fail to recognise the complexity of people's lives we shall let down some vulnerable people. It was put to us that individual claimants and members of staff might have different definitions of complexity.

Anne Begg: My hon. Friend has done a lot of work with the organisation Every Disabled Child Matters, whose evidence to the Committee made it clear that in some cases complexity in the system is a good thing, if it means that vulnerable families or families with disabled children get more money than if the benefit had been universal. Does she agree?

Joan Humble: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has anticipated what I am going to say next. The evidence that we received from the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign and the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the fact that some complexity, to reflect the special circumstances of some people's lives, is desirable. However, it is undesirable for those people to have to go through a hugely complex system themselves. They ought to be able to access the information easily. I will return to that point in a minute.
	The Every Disabled Child Matters submission to the Select Committee listed the many benefits, credits and grants that a family with a disabled child might be claiming at any given time. It is a long list, but I am going to read it out. Such a family might receive
	"Child Tax Credit from HMRC, Working Tax Credit from HMRC if working or Income Support from DWP if not, Child Benefit from HMRC, Disability Living Allowance from DWP, Carers Allowance from DWP, Housing Benefit from the Local Authority, Council Tax Benefit from the Local Authority, Disabled Facilities Grant from the Local Authority, Help with Health costs including fares to hospital from the Department of Health, Grants from the Family Fund".
	It is not just that such families have to deal with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs for the tax credit system and the Department for Work and Pensions for benefits. They may also be dealing with the Department of Health and voluntary organisations that support them. They want a system that makes life easy for them.
	In the evidence to the Committee, there was reference to the one-stop shop, which in many ways has been the holy grail of the benefits system for many years. In recommendation 23, we ask the Government to look at the feasibility of Jobcentre Plus offices becoming one-stop shops for a range of Government agencies, and we say that in the meantime, the DWP should ensure that its links with other agencies are strengthened. That will help not only those with very complex family circumstances, but those with far less complex circumstances, because they too will avoid having to go to a variety of agencies to get the answers that they want.
	The Committee identified some areas of good practice. I do not want the Minister to think that we are here simply to criticise. We received a lot of evidence about complexity and how it affects people's lives, but we were heartened by the fact that the Government have—through various pilots and through joint working, especially with HMRC and local authorities—delivered more integrated patterns of working. I hope that they will spread those examples of good practice so that the needy and vulnerable people whom the system is designed to look after will get the support that they need. The Government have set up a simplification unit in the Department, and I know that the disability and carers service is looking at its computer-generated letters.
	Finally—because I know that colleagues want to speak—I want to make a point in support of the Chairman's remarks about the importance of our role in Westminster. In 1998, I spoke in a debate in the Chamber on the then Social Security Committee report on what was called the benefits integrity project. BIP was set up in the last few weeks of the Conservative Administration, and the Labour Government inherited it. If any scheme caused more chaos than BIP—  [ Interruption. ] Well, perhaps the Child Support Agency did. However, BIP certainly caused administrative chaos and chaos among claimants.
	In that debate, one or two Members of Parliament said, "It's disgraceful that decision makers for disability living allowance are causing so much panic among DLA recipients by their implementation of the benefits integrity project." I pointed out to Members on both sides of the House that the decision makers dealing with BIP were my constituents in Warbreck house in Blackpool. I said that we Members of Parliament had given them that job; we had determined the rules. They were working hard to implement the rules that we had set. If they were failing, it had to do with the task that we set them.
	We in the House have a responsibility to make sure that benefits are as simple as possible to administer, and are complex only where that is vital to meet the special needs of the most vulnerable groups. We have to ensure that there are sufficient well-trained staff to deliver that service. Above all, we must put the claimant first and make the system as simple as possible for them. I know from my visits to Warbreck house and the disability living allowance headquarters that our staff do their best. They work very hard, but sadly, the benefits arrangements system is still too complex. Work still needs to be done, and I look forward to further progress.

John Penrose: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, and my fellow Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), on this particularly important subject. I agree with both speakers' initial comments: we have one of the most overcomplicated benefit systems in the world. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). We have an unacceptably complicated system. One need only look at the extent to which the advisory guidelines for the benefit experts have multiplied to understand that we are well past the point of being helpful, and well into the territory of nightmares. I think that the Chairman mentioned that one book has gone from 250 pages to 1,600, and the other has gone from one volume to 32.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given facts and figures from a technical point of view. It might help if I illustrated the problems that the complexity causes with a couple of real-life examples. The first example was first given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) in debate on a ten-minute Bill that he presented in the Chamber on 20 June this year, which I had the honour to co-sponsor. He mentioned a gentlemen who had been hit by a runaway car while walking along the road. My hon. Friend said that
	"he ended up in a coma and when he came round he had an acquired brain injury. As a result, he was unable to continue with his job. Someone in that situation is eligible for up to eight different benefits. If he were to apply for them all, he would have to answer a total of 1,275 questions over 352 pages.
	Let me put that in context. An A-level student doing maths, physics and chemistry has to answer 510 questions. Someone applying to do a masters in law at Harvard has to answer 54 questions. So, our welfare state, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of a civilised society, makes a man with an acquired brain injury answer more questions than our brightest A-level students or our most ambitious lawyers. That cannot be right. I wondered whether, because disabilities are complicated, we needed to ask all those questions, but in fact 80 per cent. of the questions are repeated. A third of the questions are repeated twice and a quarter are repeated four times. Think not about the waste of employing Department for Work and Pensions officials to process the same information over and over again. Think not about how that money could be put to much better use. Think instead of the man with an acquired brain injury and the signal that this sends to him about our willingness as a society to help him piece his life together. Think also of those parents who discover that they have a child with severe disabilities and the signal it sends to them that we ask them to answer more questions than if they were applying for a mortgage, a credit card or a bank account."—[ Official Report, 20 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 1379-1380.]
	That is the human cost of what we are trying to deal with. It is small wonder that we all agree that the situation is unacceptably complex.
	The second example is in the written evidence given to the Select Committee inquiry by Hertfordshire county council, which is quoted on page 16 of the Committee's report. The council gave the example of two clients, a disabled pensioner and their partner. The written evidence states:
	"They each have a full retirement pension. With the small occupational pensions that they have, they are just above the threshold for getting Pension Credit but they get partial help with rent and council tax. The disabled person claims Attendance Allowance which is successfully awarded."
	This is where it gets horrible:
	"The carer is then told about Carer's Allowance and makes a claim. It then has to be explained to the carer that they will get a letter disallowing their claim, as their retirement pension is higher than the Carer's Allowance. Armed with that letter, they then have to reapply for Pension Credit and may now qualify because of the inclusion of a carer premium in the calculation."
	I hope the House is following this carefully. The written evidence continues:
	"If Pension Credit is awarded, they will get additional Housing and Council Tax Benefit. If Pension Credit is not awarded, the carer should still get some additional Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit on application."
	Hertfordshire county council goes on to say:
	"It is almost impossible to explain this sequence of events to a lay person. Advisers are telling them that, if their income goes up, by virtue of the attendance allowance, they have to claim an additional benefit that we know in advance they will not get, in order to get fresh or higher entitlement to other benefits that were previously refused or reduced because their income was too high!"

Bill Wiggin: In his correspondence with the Government on the subject, has my hon. Friend noticed that clients, as our constituents are called, are supposed to understand these systems and take some sort of responsibility for something that it is almost impossible to explain to them?

John Penrose: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall come to the problems of unintentional error by claimants, caused by precisely the situation that he describes.
	We have had a series of examples and analyses of the kinds of complexity that we are dealing with. The causes of that complexity can be boiled down to six pathologies—six underlying problems that we must address—which I shall deal with in no particular order of importance. First, there is means-testing, up front or once a benefit has been granted and we are into the territory of benefit withdrawal rates.
	Secondly, anything that requires people to fill out a long and complicated form to explain their financial situation, and then to fill out yet more forms every time their finances change, is a huge layer of complexity—problems arising from changes of circumstances. Anything that requires people to update bureaucrats about changes of circumstances, such as changes in family circumstances caused because they have got divorced, left their partner or got married, as well as the financial alterations that I have just described, creates horrendous layers of complexity.
	The best example, perhaps, is people who are likely to take temporary jobs and cycle in and out of work frequently during the year. They have to go on and off benefits, and on and off tax credits. By and large, the delays in processing those applications mean that they are always behind and out of date, and just as the administrative arrangements are becoming organised for a person's current situation, life changes again and they have to go back to square one. Small wonder, therefore, that getting a job is not only difficult for those people, but discouraging.
	Thirdly, we have far too many tightly drawn small-scale benefits. We have already heard two different figures during the debate. One was 51 different benefits, but the Chairman of the Committee counted 40. I suspect that if we included all the passported benefits, we could probably come up with a third figure. All those narrowly drawn benefits have narrowly drawn eligibility rules, which are all different. That means that if people have to apply for multiple benefits or move off one benefit and on to another, there are yet more forms to fill in. The first example that I gave of the gentleman who could have applied for eight different incapacity benefits illustrated that nicely.
	Fourthly, the linking rules are probably more complicated than the benefits. Every time people move off one benefit and on to another, then back again on to a third, there are linking rules about backdating and the interacting effects. If claimants thought they were confused when they looked at the benefits, the linking rules would drive them to drink when they tried to understand them.
	Fifthly, as the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned, Members of the House have a propensity to introduce regular amendments and initiatives. We all think that we can improve things and make the system better, but every time we lay yet another bright idea on top of the already toppling complex system, it just makes things worse. We need to understand that if we are to introduce amendments, they must reduce the total amount of legislation and the total complexity, rather than add to them.
	Finally, another area of terrible complexity is straightforward administrative inefficiency; we have heard examples of that from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned someone who had to turn up three times, roughly a week apart, to the same centre to have the same medical assessment for three different benefits. That is a classic example of administrative inefficiency, and I am sure that Members on both sides could come up with dozens and dozens more.
	Those are the underlying causes of the symptoms, examples of which we have all been exchanging, but we also need to bear in mind that making things tidier is not just an academic exercise; there are also serious and vital advantages to having a simplified benefits system, and it is worth reminding ourselves about them because they are the prize at which this debate is aiming. They are simple, and there are far fewer of them than the causes of complexity—there are three or four at most.
	First, we can reduce error. We can do that on behalf of staff. They need a PhD to understand most of what is going on in the system at the moment; it is therefore understandable that mistakes are made—and that is before we move on to the problems caused by computer systems, which my Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, mentioned. The complexity is also a problem for claimants, because as we have just heard, they cannot be expected to understand the entire system. They are even less likely to understand it than the people who work as benefits experts within the system. Inevitably, claimants will make mistakes. That makes life hard for them and potentially exposes them to accusations of fraud even if they make a mistake in good faith.
	The second advantage to simplification is that we can improve take-up. It is striking that child benefit, one of the simplest benefits, has one of the highest levels of take-up of any of them. It is one of the most successful, and the impact on poverty and on reaching the Government's stated objectives for the benefits system would be profound if we could improve the take-up of other benefits in the same way. That might cost more, but I understand that the Government have reserves in their financial estimates.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Is he aware that, taking unclaimed tax credits and unclaimed benefits together, about £10 billion was not taken up last year?

John Penrose: There are numerous different estimates of the size of the problem, but I completely agree that there is a significant problem with low take-up. The Government have admitted that too; they have put aside a reserve for improvements in take-up if that can be achieved. They also aim to deal with the problem and they appreciate that it has a financial impact.
	The third and perhaps most important advantage of simplification is the potential improvement in work incentives. During this debate, we have heard about the better-off calculation. It might help if we pause to understand what that involves: a half-hour interview with a benefits expert in a benefits office. The expert has the advantage of a large and complicated piece of software to do the calculation. I am sure that everybody here will agree that that is not a work incentive. Even if the better-off calculation comes out positive, as it does in most cases nowadays, the person has to go to somebody else's office, sit down with them for half an hour and have a complicated and intrusive conversation to work out that they would be better off. That is the very opposite of a work incentive, which has real force only if the job offer or job advertisement in the jobcentre or anywhere else makes a person think, "Aha! If I take that job, it will pay me."
	Waiting for three weeks for an appointment and going through the process that I have just described is not a work incentive in any meaningful way, although it might be arithmetically correct that the person would be better off after the calculation. Simplification and making the point abundantly clear to everybody when they make the personal decision about whether they should go for a job, rather than later on, is essential and will be a vital and significant advantage of simplification if it can be achieved.
	What are the Government doing to move towards that agenda? To be fair, the Committee noticed significant signs of progress in some respects. We were particularly impressed by the Lean pathfinders, which are an attempt to produce an almost Toyota-like continuous improvement cycle by asking staff who are involved in benefits processing how to improve what they are doing, then taking their ideas, getting them into the system fast and putting them into practice. That struck all of us as a wholly admirable initiative that should be rolled out quickly. Secondly, there is "My DWP"—an attempt to solve some of the problems of multiple different application forms, with a pilot in Wallsend. That could also be tremendously valuable. Thirdly, let us not forget the efforts of the benefit simplification unit, which is small but none the less has a role to play and has had some success in preventing the problem whereby successive waves of improvements stemming from suggestions in this House add to complexity. The unit provides a valuable service in spotting which proposed improvements will add to complexity and which will reduce it. That is an essential service that has been long neglected.
	The problem with all three of those Government initiatives, important as they are, is that they are essentially bottom-up. They try to create improvements in administrative efficiency and better processing in the existing system but make no attempt to address some fundamental problems of benefit design. Four of the six causes of complexity that I mentioned relate to means-testing, changes in circumstances, having too many small benefits with too many tightly drawn eligibility rules, and the linking rules. None of the initiatives addresses the fundamental design problems that cause those difficulties. They address two of the six causes of complexity—regular amendments and initiatives and administrative inefficiency—but not the four most difficult and fundamental causes. The Government's approach is rather like that of the man who was found in the middle of the night searching for something under a street light. When a passer-by asked him what he was doing, he said, "I'm looking for my keys." The passer-by, trying to be helpful said, "Where did you lose them?" The man replied, "I lost them about 100 yards down the road, but there's no street light down there so I'm looking for them over here instead." The Government are not looking where the real problem is. They must face up to the fact that if they are to make significant progress on these fundamental design issues, they will have to try an awful lot harder and face up to some much more knotty problems than they are currently willing to address.
	It would be perfectly reasonable to say, "This is hard, and we haven't got all the answers." Nobody has all the answers. However, the Committee's criticism, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was that we do not see sufficient evidence of vision and drive in addressing the four, admittedly difficult, fundamental problems in our benefits system. I am hoping to hear from the Minister about that. In our report, we attempt to start a national debate. As the Chairman of the Committee said, a commission on benefits reform may be necessary.
	The Committee's proposal is not perfect or complete —we all admit that it has plenty of flaws—but we all signed up to it as a thought-starter: a way of getting the debate under way and trying to tickle from the Government some sort of statement about their vision in terms of creating a drive towards the kind of simplified benefits system that we describe. We are saying to the Government: "Here is a starting point for this debate. Please will you either come up with a better vision or tell why this one is wrong, so that we can at least start to create the sort of national conversation that will be needed to create the democratic consensus across the political spectrum and get this solved?" It has been done already; the Government had the courage to do it on pensions reform, and a similar sort of initiative is required in this case.
	We came up with such an idea. It is in annex A to the report, and I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has taken the trouble to read it. That probably makes three of us who have actually got through the thing.  [ Interruption. ] Three of us outside the Committee, I should point out. We had high hopes on the Committee that the Government would use that idea as a starting point, and as a springboard. We hoped that we would see some sort of attempt to engage with it in the debate.
	The idea has flaws, but there are at least two things that are seriously worthy for consideration as a thought starter, which might lead to the building of a consensus. One is the idea that we should combine working age tax credits, jobseeker's allowance, income support and the new employment support allowance in one overall benefit, with the condition placed on it that a person would have to be willing and able to work before it was paid to them. That may or may not be a good idea, but it is seriously simpler than what we have at the moment, and it avoids an enormous amount of the problems related to change of circumstances and to the cycle of people going in and out of work that I described before. It also avoids the problems relating to the linking rules.
	We proposed a marginal deduction rate as a clawback mechanism to avoid the problems of means-testing, where anyone who went into work would have their benefit withdrawn at a particular rate to be decided by the Government. Such a system would be an awful lot faster and simpler to administer than the current tax credit system, because it would simply require the Department for Work and Pensions to inform Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of a single number for every person earning a wage, which would then be withdrawn through their tax code. Again, that may be a good idea or it may not, but all we wanted was a constructive and considered response from the Government. I am sad to say that that is not what we got. On page 18 of the Government's response, they afforded the entire idea only this:
	"The Committee's model is more radical—a form of Citizens Income"—
	incidentally, it is not. Then went on to say:
	"As described it appears, at least at first sight, to carry a risk of both very high expenditure and reduced work incentives."
	Full stop, end of response.
	As an attempt to start a debate, that is absolutely pathetic. I am sad to say that it is not just pathetic, but also intellectually lazy, complacent, arrogant and weak, and I believe that it shows that the Government are scared. I know that we need to do better, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will say how the Government propose to do better.

Anne Begg: I intend to speak for only a few moments because I do not want to repeat all of the points already made by other hon. Members. We all agree that the benefits system in this country is extremely complicated. We all agree that it should be simplified, and I suspect that we all agree that we are not quite sure how that might be achieved. Achieving that end will probably be a lot more complex that it first appears. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was perhaps slightly modest in not explaining that most of the ideas in annex A, which he has just outlined, were his own, but he is right to say that the rest of the Committee bought into them.
	I have been attracted to the concept of a single working-age benefit since I joined the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in 2001. However, the longer I have looked at how it might work in practice, the more I have realised that a single working-age benefit would be much more complex than some of those who propose it lead us to believe. It is superficially attractive because it seems simple and clear, but we need to ensure that those who lead complex lives or have complex needs continue to get the support that they do under the present system, despite its complexities and all the forms that individuals have to fill in. As a country, we need to decide a way forward, and work out the best way to simplify the benefit system in order to get the son of Beveridge; 60 years on, our country is a different place, and we need a very different benefit system.
	The proposal in the Select Committee report for a welfare or benefits commission along the same lines as the Turner commission on pensions is the right way forward. There has been a unified voice in the Chamber this afternoon, saying that that would allow the Government to take time, stock and even a step back and begin to consider the benefits system as a whole rather than its individual pieces, and instead of tinkering with improvements and reforms here and there. We all know that reforming one part of the benefits system often has unintended consequences and knock-on effects on other parts. Therein lies the problem and the complexity.
	Often, for the best of reasons, attempts have been made to simplify benefits, but we have ended up with historic rights, which the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned this afternoon. For all the reasons to which he referred, and because we still operate systems to ensure that individual claimants are not worse off in cash terms, we have a complex system.
	The Government now have an ideal opportunity to act because, for the first time in several years, a brand new benefit is being introduced—the employment and support allowance. The basis for that allowance could be the basis on which a single working age benefit could work. Some of the groundwork has already been done, but we need a much broader investigation into what a benefits system in the 21st century should be and how the different elements should interact.
	I honestly believe that a commission, led by someone of the stature of Lord Turner—I do not think that he would necessarily take it on—could build political consensus. In the same way as we needed political consensus for a pensions system that would last not for 10 or 20 but for 50 years, we need to build a welfare system today that will, like that of Beveridge, last for 60 years. We cannot do that without all-party support, or without engaging with not only people in this place but those who depend on the welfare system, and wider society.
	I genuinely encourage the Minister to consider seriously the proposal to set up some sort of welfare or benefits commission to ascertain whether we can progress and have holistic change, which makes sense. That would ensure that we were not back here in five years—

Chris Ruane: I hope we are back here in five years.

Anne Begg: Yes, I, too, hope that we are back in five years, but talking about the commission, not still discussing how awful and complex the benefits system is and how it continues to fail the most vulnerable people in society. I hope that the Minister will take our comments and the proposal for a commission seriously.

Harry Cohen: I, too, will try to be brief because I support the comments of my colleagues on the Work and Pensions Committee, who made good speeches, and I endorse the report, to which I contributed and was happy to sign up.
	Before I came here, I was in discussions with my caseworker. The Minister will receive a bit of an angry letter about my constituent, Mr. Brandon of Leyton. He is suffering from cancer and has survived two attacks of C. difficile. I do not say that the Benefits Agency was not trying to be helpful—it was, initially. It offered him benefits for which he might have been eligible. However, in the end, the position was too complex for it and for him. He has written a sad letter saying, "I now withdraw my claim." Yet I can look at the case and say that I am sure that he is eligible for other benefits. That is an example of the complexity of the benefits system.
	We have a high level of poverty in this country. Indeed, reducing child poverty is one of the Government's targets. There are two main reasons for that: the fact that benefit levels are too low—I want to make a quick point about that while I have the chance—and the complexity in the system. There is a high level of unclaimed benefits, which just go back to the Treasury coffers and are not redistributed to alleviate poverty. Although that money is allocated initially, it makes no impact, which is a great shame.
	Benefit levels are too low. The Child Poverty Action Group has given as an example of that the category of families with disabled members. Under the heading "Adequacy", the group says:
	"The poverty line for a couple with children aged 5 and 14 years is £306, but the out of work safety net income is £204.44—just 67 per cent. of the poverty line income. DWP's own research suggests that DLA is insufficient to meet the extra needs of disability."
	Only yesterday the Royal National Institute of Blind People lobbied for higher levels of disability living allowance for blind people. I agree with that and with the point that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made about child benefit being effective and about its big take-up. That could have an impact on meeting our child poverty targets. I argue—I have the floor, so I have the chance to argue—for a higher level for second and subsequent children, which is also part of an ongoing campaign.
	On complexity, the main point in my speech is about the case for co-ordinating the criteria, so that organisations such as Citizens Advice can make applications that then link up with each other, and so that if someone is eligible for a benefit, they receive the other benefits for which they are also eligible. When we were in the United States as part of our investigation for the report, we saw that in operation. One particular charity group—the equivalent, almost, of Citizens Advice—had a form on the stocks that could be taken forward and applications made. We are long way from that in this country, which is a great shame. We need to combine a number of the benefits or link the criteria for them.
	That relates to the other points made by the Child Poverty Action Group, about a rights-based ethos, which would enable decisions to be challenged where they were thought to be wrong and act as
	"a powerful lever to improve decision making."
	The group's briefing continues:
	"Claimants should have access to the information and advocacy that will help them understand and access their welfare rights."
	I have two more brief points to make, about Help the Aged's representations to us. First, the charity says that there should be more automatic payments of benefits, saying that they should be
	"driven forward urgently in order to tackle the problem of low take ups. If implemented well over 500,000 pensioners could be taken out of poverty."
	Help the Aged's other point is that the Pension Service should have
	"the investment it needs to offer Pension Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit to all pensioners over the phone rather than just offering these three benefits to those eligible for Pension Credit."
	The Pension Service currently just has to send out a 28-page form if it thinks that a pensioner could be eligible for those other benefits. We can do a lot more in that field.
	A lot more can and should be done. The Committee was right to draw attention to the need for a vision and the drive to implement it. I urge the Minister to that end.

Mark Harper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on securing this debate and on chairing the Committee, and the members of the Committee, many of whom are here today, on their diligence and hard work in holding the Department and its Ministers to account, as is their proper role.
	Interestingly, at the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) spoke about the purpose of the benefit system. There are many different analyses of that. A report by the social justice policy group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) contained a particularly pithy definition:
	"The benefits system plays a crucial role in tackling economic dependency on the state."
	However, it also highlighted the tensions:
	"It is necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable people in society are protected against the ravages of poverty, while at the same time avoiding traps for those who could otherwise be earning a living."
	That is important, because most people agree that there is lots of evidence that the best route out of poverty is work. It is important to note, however, that some people are genuinely unable to work, and the benefits system must provide them with the level of support that allows them to live in dignity.
	There is general consensus, reflected in the Committee's report, that the UK's benefits system is hampered in achieving that by complexity. The Committee's Chairman highlighted the hugely increased complexity of documentation since his time as a welfare rights adviser. The Committee's report concluded that, while a welfare system trying to cater for millions of people with many different needs will never be simple, the UK's benefit system has an,
	"unacceptable amount of dysfunctional complexity".
	Therefore, there is a fair amount of work to do.
	One underlying theme of the Committee's report is that the simplification process needs to focus on people—both the experience of those who claim benefits and, as several Members mentioned, the experience of those who run the system, whether in a front-line Jobcentre Plus or in a headquarters, to which the hon. Lady referred. That is why we are considering approaches that have more involvement from charities, voluntary bodies and private companies that already have a great deal of expertise in the area—in particular, an understanding of the personal, emotional needs of people and of how to make the system ever more responsive.
	The Committee Chairman acknowledged that good intentions, which are prevalent in this area, often fail to deliver good outcomes. I am happy to acknowledge that the Government and the Prime Minister have a desire to combat poverty, although a number of indicators suggest that they have not been entirely successful. Five million people are on out-of-work benefits, and nearly 1.5 million have been on incapacity benefit for more than five years—up by nearly 250,000 since 2001. The number of young people out of work is rising—1.25 million young people between 16 and 24 are not in work or full-time education, which is almost 20 per cent. more than in 1997. The number of children in workless households is the highest in the EU. Obviously, those issues need to be tackled, and many would be improved were the benefits system less complex.
	Part of the complexity comes from having different parts of Government dealing with the system. One or two Members mentioned that tax credits are delivered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, while many other benefits are delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions. In its recommendation 14, the Committee concluded that
	"any attempt to simplify the benefits system must take tax credits into account."
	The Government's response referred to a number of joint working arrangements between the two Departments. If the DWP and HMRC are to work closely together, it is essential that data are protected. We all know the problems that there have been with HMRC, and it would be interesting if the Minister set out the arrangements that the DWP has in place. I tabled a number of questions due for answer last week about exactly what procedures the DWP had in place for protecting personal data. I am still waiting for answers to those. If all those procedures are in place and well understood, answering those questions ought to be relatively straightforward. The fact that they have not been answered suggests that there might be gaps.
	One of the other problems of complexity is error, which several Members have mentioned. I am perfectly happy to accept that some progress has been made, but it is still the case that in 2005-06 there was almost £1 billion of official error and £1 billion of customer error. In fact, error is now a much bigger problem than fraud, as I think the Chairman of the Select Committee acknowledged. That should clearly remain an important focus.
	Another problem with complexity is the impact on personal behaviour of means-testing. One or two Members mentioned that up to 40 per cent. of pensioners entitled to the pension credit do not claim it. Proposals in a statement earlier today to make some of the claiming processes more straightforward were welcome. Indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, referred specifically to council tax benefit take-up. A range of issues about data transfer between Departments are relevant to making that more straightforward. That problem clearly needs to be tackled.
	Another issue that has not been mentioned was the focus of a report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). As is made clear in that excellent recent report, the tax credit system brutally discriminates against two-parent households because it does not correctly reflect the cost of the second adult in the family. The report specifically concluded that the Government should take the "single immediate step" of ensuring that any new money for the tax credit system
	"should be used to lessen and then abolish the system's discrimination against two parent households."
	That would help towards targeting help
	"towards the largest group of poor children",
	which would make a big impact on the Government's child poverty targets. I am very pleased that at our recent party conference, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition committed us to removing the couples penalty and moving the working tax credit that couples receive to bring them into line with the rest of the benefits system. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that would mean 1.8 million of the poorest couples with children gaining on average £32 a week.

Terry Rooney: For purposes of clarity and honesty, what we have had from the hon. Gentleman is a statement, but with no commitment to putting in the money to match the promise.

Mark Harper: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for the opportunity to say what I was just coming on to in my remarks. The source of the funding for that promise will come out of our reforms to the welfare system and our getting more people back to work. One of the first calls on those resources will be removing the couples penalty.

Danny Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Harper: Briefly.

Danny Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman list what the reforms are? He referred to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but it is interesting to note that not a single reform to the benefit system was included in his 600-page social justice commission report. It concluded at the end that the issue should be handed over to another commission. Ideas seem to be thin on the ground, unless the hon. Gentleman is going to mention one or two more.

Mark Harper: It is very clear that we can save money by moving more people back into work—an objective that the Government share. There are 5 million people on out-of-work benefits and the Government accept that 4 million of them are capable of working. If we make a significant amount of progress towards that objective, we will clearly save a great deal of money.

Terry Rooney: That is just an aspiration.

Mark Harper: It is indeed an aspiration. I am pleased to be accompanied on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who is working on our policy in this area. We have had our recommendations from the social justice policy group, which is continuing with further work, and my hon. Friend will take those measures forward to produce our policy proposals for the next general election—unlikely to be upon us very quickly, giving us more time to flesh out some comprehensive and well- developed proposals.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee raised the question whether complexity was indeed inevitable. He suggested that a certain amount of it was. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said that she had examined our proposals, largely put together by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for a single working-age benefit. She said that the more she studied them, the more she was struck—particularly on the basis of evidence put to the Committee by the Every Disabled Child Matters group—by the fact that a very simple benefits system may not be able to deal with people who have more complex needs. Some of the evidence submitted to the Committee referred to the tension between a simple system and one that ensured that help reached those who were most in need. That is clearly an issue with which the Government will grapple.
	I want to say something about the benefits that may be claimed by disabled people, although I shall be able to spend slightly less time doing so than I expected. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood read out a long list of such benefits, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the ten-minute Bill introduced by my predecessor in this job and gave a very good illustration of the human impact.
	If Members were to look at all the questions that a disabled person applying for a range of benefits might have to answer, they would be looking at well over 1,000 questions covering hundreds of pages. The tragedy is that fewer than a fifth of those questions are unique. Forty per cent. are repeated on at least three forms and 16 per cent. are repeated on half the forms, which is certainly complex.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would consider whether, at least at an initial stage, a single benefit such as disability living allowance could serve as a gateway benefit. Perhaps, with the claimant's permission, the data provided could be shared and could act as a gateway for other benefits. I think that a Labour Member mentioned that idea earlier. It is not simple, in that it would involve the development of IT systems, with which the Government have not had a huge amount of success so far—although, to be fair, that is a problem with which all Governments grapple—but I think that it would be a positive step.
	That may have been suggested by the Conservative party, but the Government like taking ideas away, and we would congratulate them if they took this one away and shared it. In fact, the Select Committee considered a similar idea in some detail during its trip to California: the one-stop application system mentioned by the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). I commend it to the Minister.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead mentioned, in the context of a constituency case, people who suffer from ill health and who feel that the last thing with which they want to deal is benefits. Back in 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) presented the Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance (Information) Bill. It dealt specifically with people who, having been diagnosed with a terminal illness, are entitled to claim a range of benefits and find that there is no effective gateway between the diagnosis and the benefits system. That is another issue that the Government could consider.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) seemed to criticise the Government's weak response to recommendation 11. That was particularly interesting, given that he is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is unusual for someone in that position to be brave enough to criticise the Government, and I hope that it does not cause the hon. Gentleman any disadvantage.
	I can think of no better way of ending my speech than quoting the Committee's own words:
	"We conclude in this report that whilst efforts are being made to simplify benefits, the piecemeal approach that the Government has taken so far is 'nibbling at the edges' of our vast and hugely complex social security system. We do not deny that tackling dysfunctional complexity is an epic task but we are disappointed that the Government has not set out a clear vision of a simplified system."
	The words "clear vision" probably resonate with the Minister. The Prime Minister, of course, has told us that he will set out a clear vision of the future of his Government. We are still waiting, but perhaps the Minister will nudge us towards that vision when she winds up the debate.
	The report continues:
	"If simplification is indeed a priority, the Government should outline what a simpler system might look like, steps to reach this goal and set out a timetable to achieve it."
	I hope that the Minister will make some progress towards addressing the Committee's conclusions.

Caroline Flint: This has been an informative debate, and I congratulate hon. Friends and other Members on their constructive contributions. In all parts of the House there has been an acknowledgment that for decades, Administrations of all persuasions have been caught in a cycle of constantly adding to the system without necessarily trying to get hold of it in a way that enables us to look forward to change. I shall try to address that subject, as well as the individual points raised by Members.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, on securing the debate and on ably opening the discussion. He has also brought to bear his experience as a welfare rights adviser.
	I have done a quick count, and I think that the Department for Work and Pensions provides 22 benefits, five of which are no longer open to new claims; local authorities pay two benefits; Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs pays four benefits if we include tax credits; and four statutory payments are made by employers, making a total of 32. Therefore, this matter clearly raises challenges for us, but I must add that it is also about the complexities of needs, and that raises a lot of issues in terms of whether we should have a blanket approach. That could be hugely costly to the taxpayer, and having just a single approach across the piece might not be fair in terms of addressing the requirements of those with complex needs. However, we have heard enough evidence this afternoon that there is undoubtedly more to be done in trying to reduce the complexity in the system and in having some analysis of the way forward. The approach must be not only for next year or the next five years, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) indicated, there must be a generational change for the future, so that we can at least take some steps on a journey towards a destination that—I hope we can achieve a consensus on this—is better than where we are today.
	We have set up in the Department a dedicated benefit simplification unit. Every submission I get has a little note from the unit attached to the bottom on whether or not this is helping the system. I hope the House will accept my assurance that I have not had too many disagreements with it on that front, and it is pleasing to see the notes attached to the submissions because they act as triggers for thought. A number of changes have been made in the first year, such as aligning the treatment of charitable, voluntary and personal injury income across all benefits, consolidating more than 200 statutory instruments introduced since the start of the housing benefit scheme way back in 1988, and aligning the capital limits across the working-age benefits.
	Further simplifications were included in the Department's 2007 budget settlement, such as ignoring all final earnings, including holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice, on new claims to benefit. That removed the need for about 1.7 million inquiries to employers each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North made that point. I am pleased to be able to say on that front that although the original proposal was that we would do that from April 2008, we actually introduced it from October this year. Again, we met our aspiration of making greater progress in the timing and delivery of that change.
	Another simplification was to pay all Jobcentre Plus working-age benefits a minimum of two weeks in arrears on a common pay day. That will remove the current mix of different pay periods and the confusion caused when customers change from one benefit to another. Yet another simplification is aligning the treatment of income from sub-tenants across the benefits system by introducing a flat-rate £20 disregard. Today Members will have heard the uprating statement which announced a further substantial package of measures to simplify the state pension system, including process improvements to enable housing benefit and council tax benefit to be claimed over the telephone at the same time as state pension and pension credit. I think we would all agree that that is the right way forward, and it sets an example of what might be achievable in other areas. Due credit has been given to the way that, particularly in the Pension Service, the opportunity has been taken to look more innovatively at practices and how to carry them out.
	We are also simplifying the structure of income support and jobseeker's allowance by removing the lower rate for 16 and 17-year-olds so that from April of next year single 16 to 24-year-olds will all be paid the same rate. That is another way in which we have removed complexity from the system.
	We are redesigning our benefits services. It is the ambition of us all that customers should not have to go from one place to another to get the help that they need. The Department's change programme will bring in a no-wrong-door approach, which aims to meet the majority of our customers' needs through a single contact. I appreciate the comments about how we are looking at the Lean ideas and how they can be applied within the Department for Work and Pensions—I was interested in how they could be used in the national health service when I was a public health Minister. Our staff who have been engaged in that work have found it satisfying. They sense that they can have an input that will be listened to, because they are on the front line and know where things work and where they do not.
	We are trying to improve our self-service channels. From next spring, customers will be able to access a secure online account via Directgov. As has been said, the future is online. This is about examining people's need to access these sorts of services. The work that we have done to provide them in community settings for those who could not necessarily afford to have the technology in their own home is one of the ways in which we provide a more inclusive service for people, rather than a service that is exclusive. I shall touch on the important issue of data protection later.
	Part of the reason for having that online service is the fact that it will be able to answer a few simple questions in the initial stages. It will then advise customers what benefits they might be entitled to, and work out how much they might be entitled to receive. Importantly, our ambition is that it will signpost them towards other services of which they might not be aware, such as pension forecasts or our internet job bank. We are examining how we can group and package products together to meet the needs of specific groups.
	We are again working with others. Mention has been made of our work with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and local authorities to see how we can pull together the areas of benefits, tax credits and housing benefit, which are often seen as separate. We have had success with the initial pilot in the north-east, and the scheme is now operating in seven other areas. It has reduced the amount of time taken to process those different parts of someone's financial package. In addition, when someone is making the transition from being on benefits to being in work, their knowing that that process and its financial meaning will be worked out quickly is an important incentive. I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) that better-off calculations are useful at any stage, but they are most useful where there is a job for someone to go to, and where people can see joined-up thinking and what things will mean for themselves and their family.
	We are working on collecting information once and sharing it more accurately and quickly to make it easier for customers to get the financial support that they need if they lose their job. That enables them to focus their attention on getting back to work. A working group across Jobcentre Plus, the Pension Service and the disability and carers service has been set up to make improvements in how we deal with customers who need access to disability services and working-age or pensions support, and customers making the transition from working-age to pensions support.
	A number of contributions were made in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North talked about error, and I acknowledge that that is an important factor to which we must attend. Initially we looked at reducing fraud, because we saw that as a priority. I think that the loss of resources through fraud is at two thirds of its 1997 level. We are now focusing on the problem of error. In January, the Department launched a comprehensive and ambitious strategy for reducing official and customer error across all benefits, entitled "Getting welfare right". We aim to deliver estimated savings of about £1 billion over the next five years to 2012. I agree with the comments made about the fact that some of this is helped by simplification, and as has been rightly pointed out, some customers make mistakes because the system is too complex for them to navigate.
	My hon. Friend talked about transitional protection, which, again, is one of those legacy issues that we inherited. We heard comments this afternoon about how everybody complains about the system, but there is no shortage of people wanting to add on to the system. We have to be more disciplined about our approach. My final comments will draw attention to the debate that we must have following on from the Select Committee report on how the benefits system of the future might operate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made an intervention about council tax benefit. It is a rebate. People's council tax accounts are rebated at source by the local authority. Renaming it as a rebate may encourage more people to claim, and we will consider renaming it as part of our wider consideration of future delivery.
	The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) made several points. He mentioned the cost of phone calls, and that was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Concerns have been addressed and we try to keep the cost as low as possible. We are encouraging our staff to make the point that they can ring people back. It is an area that we are keeping under close attention, but people want to be able to ring in to access the services. There has been no reduction in the numbers coming forward and, although it may not be the answer for everybody, phones are available in Jobcentre Plus offices free of charge.
	Several hon. Members mentioned data handling, including a couple who said that I had not replied to their questions. They will receive answers to those questions. The Department is conducting a rigorous review of all data handling procedures to ensure that data security is paramount. We have consistently given this issue high priority and we have been praised by the former data protection commissioner for that work. However, nobody in government should be complacent. Whatever procedures are in place, they are only as good as the people who implement them and understand them, and we all need to take responsibility for making them a success.
	The issue of the Post Office card account was raised. It has been confirmed that there will be a POCA2. The tendering process is under way and the successful contractor will be announced in the summer of 2008.
	Members have rightly pointed out that some disabled people undergo different assessments for different benefits. Not all disabled people claim more than one benefit and clearly we need to be careful in those circumstances not to ask unnecessary and potentially intrusive questions, but we are considering the feasibility of building into the employment and support allowance claims process a way of automatically identifying some cases with potential entitlement to DLA, for example. We are trying to deal with the issues in a more efficient and productive way.
	The better-off in work guarantee, which was announced by the Prime Minister and which we are following through in our Department, offers an exciting opportunity to make the chance to move from benefits to work a reality for people. Some potential issues have been raised this afternoon, and we are considering how the scheme might be trialled next year. We will need to see how successful the new guarantee is, but it is an important step forward that will enable us to do much more than at present to convince people that they will have a higher income in work than on benefits.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood talked about the four different sets of backdating rules for different benefits. She was right to draw attention to that issue. From October next year, pension credit backdating rules will be aligned with working-age benefits to make the maximum period three months. At the same time, to maintain alignment, backdating of housing and council tax benefit for pensioners and working-age customers will be reduced to three months. That aligns with the other income-related benefits—income support, jobseeker's allowance and tax credits. We have a lot of work in progress that will meet the concerns expressed by hon. Members.
	My hon. Friend also talked about letters, and we have a review in progress of that area. Any ideas will be gratefully received.
	On the question of a single system, I accept that the present system is not perfect. I am not even sure that there is a perfect system, because a single system could be a very blunt instrument under which some people could lose out in a way that none of us would want to see. As with anything, good intentions do not always produce the outcomes that would make a difference. The Committee, the IPPR and others have made several helpful suggestions as to what a better system might look like, and we are on record as saying that there may be advantages in moving to a single system of working-age benefits. I can confirm that we are very interested in the issue. Simplification could make the system more effective, but I warn hon. Members that it is not an end in itself.
	The benefits system should be a powerful force for social justice. It should help people when they are in need, ensure that they are not condemned to poverty and recognise the contributions that they make to society, such as caring for others. It should also encourage them to build a better future for themselves and their families. For the vast majority of people, work is the way to achieve all that.
	We must promote work as the best route out of poverty, provide value for money for the taxpayer and set clear obligations so that customers understand their responsibilities. We must also ensure that the rules are straightforward and provide fair and consistent treatment. That is the way ahead.
	 It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates, pu rsuant to Standing Order No. 54 (4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2007-08

Cabinet Office
	 Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Cabinet Office—
	(1) the resources authorised for use be reduced by £10,596,000, as set out in HC 29,
	(2) the sum authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £2,938,000 as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.
	Department for Work and Pensions
	 Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £627,101,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 29,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £1,147,101,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.
	Mr. Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions required to be put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES AND NEW ESTIMATES, 2007-08

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £5,529,376,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 29,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £6,391,199,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid .

ESTIMATES, 2008-09 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2009—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £194,866,358,000, be authorised, on account, for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 3, HC 12, HC 13 and HC 14, and
	(2) a sum, not exceeding £179,676,962,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out.
	 Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Andy Burnham, Jane Kennedy, Angela Eagle and Kitty Ussher do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Jane Kennedy accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the years ending with 31st March 2008 and 31st March 2009 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending with 31st March 2008 and 31st March 2009: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 14].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees) ,

Stamp Duty Land Tax

That the draft Stamp Duty Land Tax (Zero-Carbon Homes Relief) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees) ,

Agriculture

That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Carer's Allowance

David Clelland: This petition has been organised by Gateshead carers association and has been signed by 2,850 residents of Gateshead and the surrounding area. The petitioners recognise the all- important and crucial role of millions of carers across the UK. They also recognise the improvements made to carers allowances and support services, but wish to see adjustments to the allowance system to improve the lot of carers further. The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of those concerned about carer's allowance
	Declares that carer's allowance needs to be reformed to make it a fair and just benefit for all carers. In particular, that the rules which prevent carer's allowance being paid to those receiving an equivalent amount of retirement pension or incapacity benefit should be ended. Further, that the earnings rule be changed to a sliding scale, so that carers do not suddenly lose all of their carer's allowance when they earn more than a given amount.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to reform the carer's allowance to make it a fair and just benefit for all.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000074]

Post Office Closures (Brighton)

David Lepper: I wish to present a petition opposing the proposed closure of the post office at 13, Preston road, Brighton. The petition is in the name of Nancy Platts, and is signed by 644 residents and people who work in the area where the post office is situated.
	The petition says:
	The petitioners declare that they believe that local Post Offices play a vital role in community life and value the service given by Post Office staff. That the closure of the branch at 13 Preston Road will leave residents and businesses in this part of Preston Road and Preston Circus with no easily accessible post office. Lack of public transport links and steep hills make one of the alternative branches named by the Post Office Ltd. inappropriate, and there is no guarantee of the long-term future of London Road Co-op Post Office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to make representations to the Post Office Ltd. to withdraw its closure proposals for the Post Office at 13 Preston Road, Brighton.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000077]

Post Office Closures (North-West Glasgow)

John Robertson: I present a petition, signed by more than 4,000 residents of my constituency and the surrounding area, about prospective post office closures and the hardships that will be felt by people both in my constituency and in the area around it.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of constituents from Glasgow North West and the surrounding areas,
	Declares its concern about the number of Post Offices threatened with closure.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government, as the sole shareholder of Post Office Limited, to call upon Post Office Limited to reverse plans to close Post Offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000076]

SCALLOP DREDGING (LYME BAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of scallop dredging in Lyme bay. I am sure that the Minister needs no reminding that the part of Lyme bay I am describing, which stretches from Beer to West Bay, is mainly though not wholly in the West Dorset constituency that I represent. I thus have a strong constituency interest.
	Before I dwell on the detail, I want to talk about our attitude as a nation to what is usually called biodiversity—an important test of the Government's will to concern themselves seriously with the issue. I hope that in time that technocratic word—biodiversity—will be less and less used, and that people will more frequently talk about what is actually at stake: the rich beauty of the natural environment, not only marine-based, but also land and air-based.
	Our marine environment, and the rich beauty it contains, is an important constituent of the pleasure we can take in the natural world around us. It is of course systematically impossible to explain to someone who does not understand or care about the importance of pink sea fans or yellow coral why such things should matter. Many people might say, "I might never see one of these things. I live in a house and I'm not very concerned about what goes on under the sea." Such a person might argue that it does not really matter whether there are more or fewer species of this or that type of bird or animal. To my mind, such arguments miss a tremendous point: the search for beauty is in part the search for the rich texture that goes by the technocratic name of biodiversity—a view that I think is shared widely throughout the country, and by the Government and Members of the House.
	If we take that as a starting point, it becomes clear that methods of farming the sea that constitute a significant threat to the character of the marine environment need to be addressed. That too, as far as I can make out, is common ground on both sides of the House, and between the Government and the rest of us. It is certainly the common view of respondents—the ones I am aware of—to the Government's consultation paper.
	With a concern for the protection of the marine environment goes another principle, which, again, is common ground: the farming of the sea should be carried out on a sustainable basis. We are all extremely conscious that the ability of the world as a whole to fish sustainably is much less than we would like it to be. Fisheries the world over are in grave trouble. We are also conscious that in European waters, the common fisheries policy has signally failed to produce the degree of sustainability that we wish to see.
	There are great questions that require great answers, and thank goodness it is not my task this evening to dilate on them. I am conscious that the Minister and others involved in those issues face an enormous task. In this case, however, we have an opportunity to have a direct impact that is not complicated by the great international fisheries issues or the great issues of the common fisheries policy. We are talking about something that is directly under the control of the UK Government and of Parliament, which has the ability to set and enforce the rules. We have an opportunity to get the right answer from the point of view of the protection of both the rich beauty of the marine environment and the sustainability of a small element of our fisheries.
	The next stage in my argument is, I hope, also common ground. The extremely large heavy metal cones—if I can describe them in that way—that are dragged with considerable force across the sea bed by scallop dredgers wreak havoc with the reefs in the part of Lyme bay I am describing. There is no question but that they constitute an unsustainable form of fishing. In fact, it is wrong to describe what is done with them as a form of fishing; it is a form of collecting objects from the sea bed. They cause significant collateral damage to the sea bed and to what are called in the literature the "biological communities"—the things that live on the sea bed.
	Those large metal cones have a knock-on effect, because they also cause damage to a wide range of other creatures living in the sea. Constituents of mine whose livelihood is gained from fishing for crabs and other such creatures, and who use things such as pots, report that they frequently find creatures that have been damaged by the large metal cones. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it is common ground that we have a desire to protect the marine environment and the sustainability of fisheries. We are talking about a form of fishing—if one can call it that—that does neither of those things, and which, if allowed to act unrestrainedly in this part of Lyme bay, will damage the marine environment quite considerably, and will create the opposite of a sustainable fishery, ultimately defeating its own activities and causing collateral damage to other forms of fishing in the area.
	I say that I am glad that all that is common ground, and that the problem is how to deal with the situation—but in recent months I have become increasingly concerned that there is no common ground on this issue. Most of the serious environmental work that has been done suggests one view, while the view put forward by the Government—by preference, I think, but I look to the Minister to inform us further on that point—and by the sea fisheries committees is different. I shall crystallise that difference as the difference between option A and option C; I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for skipping lightly over option B.
	Essentially, we face an argument between two parties. There are those who maintain that the collateral economic damage that would be done if the entire area were ruled out of court for scallop dredging would outweigh the benefits; that is the position of the sea fisheries committees. That is a fear, and the Minister may be tempted to share that position, but I hope that I am proved wrong about that. On the other hand, environmentalists have argued strongly for option C, which rules out scallop dredging throughout the area.
	Of the work that has been done to establish the economic damage that would occur if the whole area were ruled out of bounds for scallop dredging, a study produced by Homarus looks, to an amateur eye such as mine, rather more carefully produced than the broad figures given by the sea fisheries committees. I am inclined to believe that the economic damage is likely to have been estimated in a sensible way by Homarus. Again, I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If Homarus has correctly estimated the economic damage caused by the wider exclusion zone envisaged in option C, the arguments for option C become enormously strong.
	The main reason why I wanted to hold this debate tonight was to put something firmly on the table for the Minister and his Department. It is critical that whichever option is chosen, it should not simply be a set of rules, or a dead letter. It should end up being an enforceable proposition. The strongest argument that the sea fisheries committees have used in favour of option A is that through voluntary agreement it has been possible to achieve something. By common consent, in the recent past there has been acceptance by scallop dredgers in Devon and further afield that they should not dredge in areas where there is a voluntary agreement preventing such dredging. There has therefore been a self-enforcing mechanism for narrowly defined areas.
	The danger is that if we introduce a ban for a wider area without proper enforcement, we will end up with an ineffective ban, and an ineffective ban is no ban at all. I hope that the Minister will recognise that if the arguments for wider exclusion along the lines envisaged in option C are strong, as I believe they are, the concomitant needs to be a serious reappraisal of what is necessary if we are to enforce option C. I hope that he will recognise that that is intimately connected with the issue of the speed with which the Government deliver the forthcoming marine Bill. There is cross-party consensus on the intention behind that Bill, but the Bill has not yet seen the light of day.
	Tonight, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he accepts the broad principles of the need to preserve the part of the marine environment that we are discussing, and to preserve sustainable fishing of that environment. I hope that he will accept that the economic analysis of option C, carried out on behalf of the wildlife trusts, is probably near the truth, and that the arguments for option C—the wider exclusion zone—are therefore very strong. However, if we move in that direction, I hope that he will ensure that we have an effective enforcement mechanism, so that we do not have a meaningless ban that is a dead letter.

Jonathan R Shaw: I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on securing this important debate. It is evident that the future of Lyme bay is close to his heart, and rightly so. It is a beautiful part of his constituency. I, too, feel strongly about the area and the various activities that take place in and around the bay.
	In my capacity as fisheries Minister, I have met many people and organisations with a vested interest in the area. I have visited Lyme bay and held a series of meetings and discussions with a wide variety of stakeholders, ranging from the conservationists at Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Devon Wildlife Trust to fishing trade bodies such as the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and local fishermen in Brixham. Last month I was pleased to launch a public consultation on how best to protect the bay. The consultation is looking for views on which features need to be protected and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the best way to enforce safeguards in an area that is home to a rich variety of sea life and is being considered for designation as a special area of conservation.
	In addition to the meetings that I have held with stakeholders, a team from my department at DEFRA has been working closely with a number of organisations in the area to find a local solution to the Lyme bay issue. I know that, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, local fishermen have already volunteered to stop scalloping in part of the bay, and they are working closely with Plymouth university to undertake a thorough study of the Lyme bay scallop fishery and the other seabed life in the area. My department has also asked the Seafish Industry Authority and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to look closely at the Lyme bay situation. A host of organisations are helping to inform us so that we can make the right decision.
	I am keen that a local solution be found that takes into account both the environment and the socio-economic impact that a ban on scalloping may have, particularly in view of the fishing industry's claim that a total ban could cost the region up to £3 million. That is the figure that the industry has given us, and we will consider all the information. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the wildlife trusts. We will consider their views as well, with the support of our scientists at CEFAS and our officials.
	Lyme bay is economically important for a range of activities, many of which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. We need to consider how the biological resources of Lyme bay can be exploited in the most sustainable way that is compatible with its importance to the marine environment. The Lyme bay reefs are important not just to his constituency or to me, but to all of us. He spoke about their beauty, and he is right. The pink sea fan and sunset cup coral are rare and threatened. There are some wonderful pictures in the Devon Wildlife Trust's document entitled "A 16-year search for sustainability". One has only to leaf through it to see the wonder of the biodiversity—a word that I know the right hon. Gentleman does not like, and I agree with him. It is technocratic, but we know what we mean.
	The Lyme bay reefs may be internationally important. Natural England is currently analysing data to see if they should qualify as a special area of conservation under the European Union's habitats directive. We expect to receive Natural England's initial advice on that next year. It is clear that those reefs are fragile and highly vulnerable—an issue brought into sharp focus by the recent disappearance of the Exeter reefs in the western part of the bay. That is why we worked with the fishing industry last year to put in place a voluntary agreement, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. That agreement was introduced 15 months ago, and it has held.
	The protected areas were introduced according to the best available evidence at the time and they protected 92 per cent. of the known locations of pink sea fans. However, pink sea fans would be more widely distributed outside the survey areas and they represent only one aspect of the ecological importance of the Lyme bay reefs. That is why we have asked for more information on the ecological and economic importance of the reefs and are consulting on a full range of options for their protection. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the options, which I shall outline briefly: confirmation of the current voluntary agreement; statutory protection of the four closed areas; closure of three larger areas covering 25 square miles of the reefs; and closure of one larger area covering 60 square miles of the reefs.
	We will also consider other options based on the information provided in response to the consultation, and we will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said this evening. The consultation, which we have extended for a couple of weeks to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make their case, closes on 21 December. I will consider the responses carefully and develop a solution for fisheries management in Lyme bay that helps deliver our vision for sustainable fisheries in tandem with nature conservation. I hope to announce my decision in the new year.
	It is important that the right decision is made. Lyme bay could be the flagship for future decisions on marine protected areas policy. The sea is a massive resource that belongs to us all. Only by working together can we achieve a marine environment that is good for nature, recreation and our industries. As we said when we published the White Paper and as the Prime Minister has said, the marine Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, will be the first of its type anywhere in the world. The draft Bill will be published in the spring. There will be consultation on it and it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It will be the first such Bill in the world and it is vital that we get it right. This House wants to have input, as does the other place.

Adrian Sanders: I have a simple question. Do we need the Bill in order to act?

Jonathan R Shaw: No, we do not; that is why I shall make my decision earlier in the year. However, the Bill will inform future policy.
	The Bill will provide a framework in which to consider the interactions to which I have referred and their cumulative impacts on the environment. It will help us to be more efficient in our use of marine space by considering activities that are compatible and even mutually beneficial when put together. It is vital that we take the decision in the context of our wider vision for marine conservation and sustainable fisheries.
	Surrounding our island are waters that are among the richest marine environments in the world. It is vital that we bring the conservation standards in our seas up to those that currently apply on land. Given our wonderful marine life, it is amazing that we have not considered that point before. Environmental agencies have campaigned on the issues for 50 years; next year, we will all have the Bill and we look forward to the scrutiny.
	I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have a series of well-developed nature reserves on land, and we need to increase the number and extent of marine nature reserves in our seas. As the Minister responsible for that area of policy, I am keen to ensure that we protect the many rare, threatened and valuable habitats in our territorial waters.
	However, the protection of marine habitats is not the only important factor; the sea is important for a wide range of other reasons. Our climate and the seas surrounding us lend themselves perfectly to a number of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and tidal power schemes, which are seen by many as vital to help us tackle the increasing threat of dangerous climate change. The sea provides us with more significant economic benefits and supports coastal communities through traditional industries such as transport and fishing. It is vital for us to work with stakeholders across the board, and across the country, to ensure that there is space for all those activities while at the same time ensuring that we protect and conserve our marine ecosystems.
	As I said, we are keen to protect our traditional industries, such as fishing. Our vision for marine fisheries, "Fisheries 2027", sets out what we want to achieve from fisheries and the essential role played by the fishing industry and others in moving us to a more sustainable footing. We want a fisheries sector that can provide a long-term economic and social benefit not only for the industry but for wider society. It is imperative that, as with any human activity, we ensure that associated environmental impacts are minimised.
	I firmly believe that we can balance conservation with economic growth, not only in Lyme bay but throughout the waters of our marine environment. We must agree that those are our goals, and I have no doubt that the Government have the energy and commitment to pursue them vigorously. I am proud to be the fisheries Minister who will bring forward the draft marine Bill and see it into legislation. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this important and timely debate to the House. I will make my decision based on all the information available, including what has been said in the debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.